No products in the cart.


Edwin Vieira: The Bastardy of Martial Law


Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., has unleashed another round of cover-fire for the Constitution and the Militia which that Constitution requires. In his masterly pathways through history and current events, through the competing smoke-and-mirror shows of a driving force which uses the People’s government to control them, Dr. Vieira deftly carries the reader into the meanings of the phraseology of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and more. Dr. Vieira  generously shares a remarkable ability to convey perceptions which strike home while illuminating the interfacing logic of all segments of the founding documents. This article was first published at NewsWithViews, linked below. Feel free to give ’em some hits. It is republished here in full with permission. Dr. Vieira would like for our readers to know about his new book and the following article.


Elias Alias, editor



By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

August 9, 2014  *

My latest book—By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”—is now available through Amazon. Its title encapsulates its theme: namely, that “martial law” (as most Americans conceive of it) is a wholly illegitimate concept which appeals to some supposed, but false, “necessity” in order to establish a very real tyranny.

Some might say that, in light of the present parlous condition of the Republic, and especially the pathetic indifference of average Americans to this sorry state of affairs, writing such a book will prove to be a fool’s errand on my part—or perhaps a hopeless task quixotically undertaken for the benefit of fools. Obviously, I disagree. I consider the subject-matter of this book to be vital to this country’s survival.

To be sure, By Tyranny Out of Necessity is not the most important book which I have written on the general subject of the place of the Militia in America’s constitutional edifice. The others—Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume One, The Nation in Arms; Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume Two, The Sword and Sovereignty; Thirteen Words; and Three Rights—were more significant in principle, because if patriots in sufficient numbers had paid attention to the message those works conveyed, and had taken action upon it, the danger of “martial law” would already be well on the way to being obviated. As of now, however, By Tyranny Out of Necessity is the most important of my books in practice, precisely because most Americans have not been paying attention—not so much to my works, but to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution upon which those works are based. Now, people are becoming increasingly worried about the imposition of “martial law” in the course of some jury-rigged “national emergency”.  They are being told by “the Powers That Be” that “martial law” is legitimate, and that sufficient steps are being taken to prepare for it—especially in the para-militarization of State and Local “law-

enforcement” and “emergency-management” agencies. Through the media, they have witnessed an example of the implementation of “martial law”, on a small yet highly organized scale, in Watertown, Massachusetts, hard upon the bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon. Many of them have had personal experiences with the bestiality of “martial law” in the myriad episodes of unpunished “police brutality” which take place almost every day throughout this country. Yet, overall, most Americans have no idea whether “martial law” is even lawful or not—but apparently are resigned to the belief that nothing can be done to stop it from being imposed upon them.

One would presume that, in light of the seriousness of the matter, Americans would ask: “What is ‘martial law’?” and “How is ‘martial law’ legal?” Certainly, proof of the illegality of “martial law”—in any of its particulars, let alone as a whole—would provide a firm foundation for opposing it, and for deposing from public office those individuals who propose it. So I anticipate (or at least hope) that By Tyranny Out of Necessity, which demonstrates in exhaustive detail why the common misconception of “martial law” is industrial-strength bunkum, will be a smashing success in terms of its usefulness among patriots who intend to keep their heads out of the sand, their feet on the ground, and their eyes on the ultimate goal of living in what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”.

Yes, one would presume, perhaps even expect, that such would be the case. Yet hoping does not make it so. There remains the possibility that this country has already plunged so far off the deep end of Spengler’s Der Untergang des Abendlandes that nothing can be done to salvage the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any semblance of “a free State”. What might constitute evidence for that lugubrious conclusion?

A. The evidence. That I have had to write By Tyranny Out of Necessity (or, for that matter, any of my books touching on the Militia) is prime evidence of the decay into which this country has fallen. For, as By Tyranny Out of Necessity explains, the Militia are, as they always have been, the definitive preventive of and answer to “martial law”, or any other manifestation of usurpation or tyranny. No threat of “martial law” would exist if Americans were properly organized in “the Militia of the several States”, because any constitutionally valid form of “law” that needed enforcement by “martial” institutions against civilians would be the civil laws of the Union and of the several States executed by the Militia—that is, by WE THE PEOPLE themselves.

Even the half-witted rogues in the Disgrace of Columbia would think long and hard about the inadvisability of attempting to invoke “martial law” if WE THE PEOPLE awakened to their own constitutional authority in the Militia; refused to recognize the legitimacy of any form of “law” that needed “martial” enforcement against civilians, but was not executed by or under the control of the Militia; organized themselves for the purpose of revitalizing the Militia by means of State legislation under the States’ reserved constitutional authority in that respect; and through that effort prepared themselves to oppose “martial law” even if that legislation could not be enacted in time in every State. Emphasis on the last point is vital: Even if patriots could not succeed in having proper Militia statutes enacted throughout this country before a major economic, political, and social breakdown occurred, they could at least motivate, educate, organize, equip, and train tens of thousands of Americans who would be capable of acting collectively in their and their country’s interests. This critical mass does not exist at present; and it will never come into being unless and until adequate steps are taken to revitalize the Militia. Perhaps only a small part of it can be amalgamated before a calamity strikes. But something for some is better than nothing for all—a self-evident truth to which every passenger who found a seat in one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic would have attested.

B. Some of the responsible parties. The plain fact is, however, that neither “the Militia of the several States” nor any significant movements in favor of revitalizing the Militia exist in any State. Who is to blame for this? Of course, “the Powers That Be” and their partisans, clients, stooges, and hangers-on are the primary culprits—because the very last thing they want is for WE THE PEOPLE to organize themselves in the institutions which the Constitution describes as “necessary to the security of a free State”. “The Powers That Be”, after all, recoil from “a free State” as vampires recoil from garlic. Yet they are not the only responsible parties. Many other Americans are at fault, too. For example—

• The catastrophards. These doomsayers contend that it is useless to promote the revitalization of the Militia (or any other constitutional reform, for that matter), because all is already irretrievably lost. A national catastrophe, in one horrendous manifestation or another, is inevitable, imminent, unavoidable, and unmitigable. Perhaps surprisingly, in the front ranks of these people march certain lay preachers who declaim in the style of prophets out of the Old Testament how this country is “under judgment” and will soon be destroyed by the hand of God. Well, if that is so, then good riddance to it. But is that prophecy true? Apparently their voices have not reminded them that God still helps those who help themselves. Neither have their voices recommended to them the alternative explanation of contemporary events, that Americans have not yet failed Heaven’s test, but are being tested right now—that all of the cultural bolshevism, pessimism, decadence, perversion, depravity, criminality, corruption, usurpation, and even tyranny from which America suffers is being allowed to afflict her so that WE THE PEOPLE can finally screw their courage to the sticking place and reassert the principles of “a free State” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—and that “judgment” will befall them only if they fail, neglect, or refuse to pass this test.

• The appeasers. Amazing (at least to me) is how many self-styled “patriots” are actually rather abject appeasers of and collaborators with “the Powers That Be”. This manifests itself most strikingly and sickeningly in the childish fear of “the M word” endemic in these people. How many times have I heard it said, and all too accurately so, that “even most of those Americans who support the Second Amendment do not want to be associated with anything concerning ‘militia’”? How, though, is this possible? Precisely how can someone claim to support the Second Amendment while at the same time repudiating the constitutional institutions which the Amendment itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”? What good is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” if it does not conduce to “the security of a free State”? And how can it do so if “the people” do not employ it in the Militia which the Amendment itself declares to be “necessary to” that purpose?

One can understand why various subversive organizations and individuals, in public office as well as private station, stridently demonize the word “militia”. They are intent, after all, not simply on tarring a word, but on psychologically terrorizing all Americans so that they can prevent the reinstatement of the very establishments which the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”—and thereby insure the destruction of “a free State” everywhere within this country. Beyond understanding, though, is what those self-styled “patriots” who appease these subversives by distancing themselves from, if not demonizing, the word “militia” expect to gain from such craven and stupid behavior. Collaboration of that ilk can only hasten the day when no “free State” exists anywhere in America.

If these appeasers are ashamed of and unwilling to support their own Constitution with respect to what it declares in no uncertain terms to be “necessary”, they should emigrate to North Korea, where even lip-service is not paid to the principles and practices of “a free State”. They would do truly patriotic Americans a favor, because the departure of each defeatist collaborator from this country would give those patriots who remained that much of a better chance to prevail—at least to the extent of not having constantly to worry about being stabbed in the back.

• The intellectual élite. A not insignificant part of the self-styled “patriotic” leadership in this country contends that next to nothing can be done to dam the political, economic, social, and cultural sewage pouring out of the Disgrace of Columbia because, although the intellectually acute leaders themselves fully understand what needs doing, average Americans are little more than bovine morons whom the leaders simply cannot educate or motivate to do the right thing. So it is supposedly hopeless to expect “the sheeple” ever to understand the need to revitalize the Militia. This, however, is pathetic special pleading on two counts.

First, those in glass houses should not cast stones. If the sheeple are stupid, are the shepherds any smarter? How many among the self-obsessed intellectual élite of the “patriotic” leadership really understand the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the relationship between the two? How many realize what the Second Amendment calls “a free State” actually is? How many are willing to do what is required to guarantee the survival of “a free State”? And, most to the point, how many pay any attention to the only institutions the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”? Apparently not very many. For how many among the leadership support, or even mention, revitalization of the Militia?

Second, only a poor workman blames his tools. By hypothesis, average people need “leaders” because they are incapable of “leading” themselves. True “leaders” qualify as such because they are extraordinary individuals who demonstrate the capacity to show average people the right way to go. Therefore, the primary responsibility of “leaders” among the intellectual élite is always to devise a means to educate the people, not to complain about how uneducable they are. Just as a cabinetmaker must hone his chisels to fine edges in order to perform satisfactory work, if the people’s wits are dull the first task of the leadership must be to sharpen them. So, if America’s “patriotic” leadership does comprehend what is “necessary to the security of a free State”, its failure to pass on to average citizens the gist of this knowledge is more likely its own fault, rather than the fault of its pupils. The leadership cannot justly blame the people for its own sloth and incompetence.

• The “patriotic” gurus of the ether. The gurus who haunt the “patriotic” alternative media of websites, blogs, videos, talk radio, and so on make their livings by expatiating endlessly on the terrifying dangers that are impinging upon this country. In style, they are strikingly akin to the gnats of summer. They flit wildly from one topic to another (or provide a plethora of links that encourages their audiences to do so). They buzz with the artificial excitement of the moment. Sometimes they bite with trenchant comments. But, when all is said and done, their effect remains ephemeral. No one remembers tomorrow what they said yesterday. This is because, although they are often good at identifying obvious problems in the short term, they always seem unable to propose really workable long-term solutions. They sometimes can tell Americans what is going wrong, but almost never delve into how to set it right. Perhaps this is because they are unable to grasp that, although the day-to-day problems may change, the underlying causes of—and the ultimate solutions to—them never do. Or perhaps it is because they do grasp that the ever-intensifying difficulties assaulting Americans are (as the Chinese say) their very own rice bowls, without which they would have to find other sources of employment and income. Whatever the reason, they tend to be more public nuisances than public benefactors, because their viewers, readers, and listeners imagine that they have done something useful by tuning in, or that they need not do anything else, or that nothing more can be done.

In contrast, the Constitution sets out certain fixed principles of permanent value for WE THE PEOPLE’S control of the institutions called “government” at every level of the federal system. The most important of these is that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, because the overarching purpose of the Constitution is to secure “a free State” for all Americans. One would hope that THE PEOPLE would not need any “patriotic” gurus (or anyone else) to remind them of that. Yet, inasmuch as THE PEOPLE seem to have temporarily forgotten this principle—as evidenced by the absence of “well regulated Militia” in all of the fifty States—to be worth their salt the gurus should be emphasizing it at every opportunity. That they are not is revealing.

• The members of “private militias”. It is worse than simplistic to dismiss the members of various “private militias” scattered across this country as mere rustic buffoons who stupidly imagine themselves capable of employing Eighteenth-Century tactics to save America from Twenty-first-Century tyranny. For they at least understand that it is more intelligent to put some extra lifeboats on the Titanic before she sails, than to attempt to cobble a few together from deck chairs as she is sinking. They at least comprehend that it is more prudent to organize their families, friends, and neighbors into what they mistakenly call “militia” before a nationwide crisis breaks out and “the Powers That Be” invoke “martial law”, rather than afterwards. For obviously it is better to bring together as many people as possible in cooperative endeavors on the basis of common plans before any such crisis supervenes—rather than when society is in utter disarray; when in the midst of chaos patriots are compelled to act as individuals or in small groups who or which do not even know of each other’s existences; and when, realizing their own isolation and lack of support from anyone else, patriots cannot depend upon or even minimally trust their own neighbors.


Nonetheless, the members of these “private militias” have grasped only the less important half of the right idea. In the final analysis, the organization of such groups is useless for restoring constitutional government, for the undeniable reason that, even if they are perfectly legal in all other respects, “private militia” by definition possess no governmental character. True constitutional “Militia” are governmental establishments of the several States, “well regulated” by statutes according to certain definite constitutional principles. In contrast, being the products of purely private action, no “private militias” can claim any governmental, let alone specifically constitutional, authority. And without such authority no “private militias” can assert the constitutional right, power, and duty to execute the laws of the Union and of the several States in a “martial” fashion against usurpers and tyrants who attempt to inflict “martial law” upon Americans anywhere within this country.

Indeed, if the misplaced enthusiasm for “private militias” did not derive originally from the machinations of agents provocateurs and agents of influence despatched by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it ought to have. For nothing could be more useful to “the Powers That Be” than: (i) to goad patriots into expending their energies on purely private and uncoordinated activities, rather than on efforts to revitalize the constitutional establishments which embody and empower popular sovereignty; (ii) to deceive patriots into becoming suspicious of and antagonistic to “government” in general, so that they will disdain seeking the specifically governmental authority which the Constitution offers them (indeed, requires them to exercise) through the Militia; and (iii) to mislead patriots into disarming themselves of such a status, so that, in a crisis, when they are asked “What is your constitutional authority?” the honest answer must be “We have none.”

• Proponents of the so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms”. Those in the rather large crowd touting “the individual right to keep and bear arms” are worse off than the members of any “private militia”, because they comprehend far less than half of the problem. They fixate on the private possession of firearms alone, disregarding entirely that the organization of “well regulated Militia” imbued with governmental authority—not simply the adventitious possession of firearms by average Americans as their private right—is “necessary to the security of a free State”.

If the misplaced enthusiasm for “the individual right to keep and bear arms” did not derive originally from “black” political-psychological operations set in motion by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it too ought to have. For Americans who myopically focus on an “individual right” to the exclusion of the Militia imagine that they are promoting the ultimate purpose of Second Amendment simply by “clinging to their guns”—which, as one of their favorite expressions has it, will have to be pried “from their cold, dead hands”. But this bravado, even if backed up by action, can defend only a part of the Second Amendment—a part which, although necessary, is not sufficient. While each American who might have helped to revitalize the Militia dotes exclusively on his “individual right”, the Militia remain unorganized, and “the security of a free State” remains undefended by the institutions which the Second Amendment declares to be “necessary” for that purpose. None of these folks seems to recognize that: (i) Americans’ collective right (and duty) to possess firearms suitable for service in the Militia also secures each American’s “individual right”—for the self-evident reason that every member of the Militia, armed for that purpose, is also an individual who must maintain personal possession of one or more firearms at all times, thereby exercising an “individual right” to those firearms within the Militia far more secure than any “individual right” to any firearm which he might enjoy outside of the Militia (until the Judiciary declares that some so-called “compelling state interest” allows for that “individual right” to be abridged). And (ii) the purely “individual right to keep and bear arms” does nothing to secure each American’s collective as well as individual right (and duty) to participate in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore next to nothing to promote “the security of a free State” for which such a Militia is “necessary”.

Consider the danger from tyranny. Can any individual, exercising solely his “individual right to keep and bear arms” in the confines of his own cellar, be expected to deter, let alone to stand up against, a tyranny which disposes of a large, well organized, and fully equipped police-state apparatus? Can even thousands and tens of thousands of individuals, individually exercising their “individual rights” in their individual cellars in mutual isolation, be expected to stop such a tyranny in its tracks? No—the “individual right to keep and bear arms”, individually exercised, simply assures the defeat of all individuals in detail. Only by organizing the great mass of her patriotic citizens for collective action can America defend herself from any tyranny worthy of that name. (And from an host of other highly undesirable situations less serious, but probably more likely, than full-blown tyranny.)

Consider also the contemporary problem of the constant political agitation in favor of “gun control”. Even having been approved by bare majorities of the Justices of the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” remains woefully insufficient to stifle this subversive ferment. Notwithstanding Heller and McDonald, which way is the line moving on the graph of tyranny versus liberty? On the one hand, “gun control” is still advancing by giant strides in such “people’s democratic republics” as New York, Connecticut, California, Maryland, and New Jersey. On the other hand, in the course of lobbying and litigation over “gun control” sometimes patriots do win, and sometimes they lose—but the struggle goes on interminably, because they have not finally secured the practical application of the constitutionally most significant principle that every eligible American has a right (and a duty) to serve in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore to be appropriately armed at all times for that purpose (unless, as to the actual possession and use of firearms, he happens to be a conscientious objector). Is not this never-ending fight over “gun control”, arising out of incessant political aggression against the American people by rogue public officials and the subversive private special-interest groups allied with them, wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment’s command that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”? What other constitutional right is the subject of such relentless attacks that its character as a true “right” is constantly open to challenge and even denial in America’s legislatures and courts?

Thus, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” proves to be a snare and a delusion—even arguably the greatest disservice to the defense of the Republic in modern times:

First, it cannot defeat, and probably cannot even deter, the kind of tyranny against which average Americans would need to exercise large-scale armed resistance.

Second, it diverts Americans from the real issue—which is the supreme constitutional authority of WE THE PEOPLE organized in “the Militia of the several States”.

Third, it administers a political soporific—that the big “gun-rights” organizations have everything well in hand, as long as common Americans continue to send them and their attorneys more and more money to pour down the rat-holes of endless lobbying and litigation.

Fourth, even when lobbying and litigation fail to secure “the individual right” to anything like its full extent, it nonetheless provides a political narcotic which attenuates the psychic pain of defeat with the consolation that at least some Americans can retain possession of some of their firearms under some circumstances for some limited purposes for some little while longer. Of course, who can foresee how long that will last? And as the narcotic effect wears off with the steady advance of “gun control”, who can predict how painful the withdrawal symptoms induced by a final exposure to hard reality will be? Finally, and of the most dire consequence,

Fifth, while the struggle over “gun control” continues on the “gun controllers’” own terms, Americans are doing nothing to revitalize the Militia on the Constitution’s terms.

• Purveyors of fairy-tale panaceas for America’s problems. If the proponents of “private militias” and of “the individual right of the people to keep and bear Arms” at least grasp small—albeit woefully insufficient—parts of what needs to be done, what can be said about the Pied Pipers of Humbug who promote such airy schemes as “Impeachment” of Barack Obama?

Leave aside the obvious objection that, if Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President” because he is not “a natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, then he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment” under Article II, Section 4, because as a matter of constitutional law he never entered into that “Office” in the first place. Indicted he might be—for impersonation of a public official (as well as for numerous other offenses stemming from and facilitated by that imposture)—if he is actually constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President”; but “removed from Office on Impeachment” he cannot be. To be eligible for “Impeachment” from some office, one must first be eligible to the office to which “Impeachment” relates. The illogicality of the drive for “Impeachment” is not the worst of its demerits, though. The most glaring are the impracticality of “Impeachment” in the short term and its utter irrelevance in the long run.

First, in light of the present composition of Congress, can anyone not regularly ingesting LSD or some other hallucinogenic drug possibly imagine that “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama might possibly follow a strictly constitutional path to a strictly constitutional end? For example, with respect to the notorious issue of Mr. Obama’s alleged ineligibility to “the Office of President”, and all of the consequences thereof, is not every Member of Congress knowingly, willfully, and intentionally complicitous in whatever wrongdoing has taken and continues to take place, or at least proceeding with willful blindness towards or in reckless disregard of the facts? No present Member of Congress who was in office in 2008 or 2012 challenged a single electoral vote supposedly cast for Mr. Obama in the presidential elections of those years—although every Member of Congress had a statutory right and even duty to do so. And apparently not a single Member of Congress at the present time openly refuses to acknowledge, accept, or acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s posturing as “the President”. Why this is the case doubtlessly requires different explanations for different Members of Congress—none of these excuses, one presumes, exculpatory. But that such is the case no one can deny. How, then, can anyone expect such hopelessly compromised individuals to carry through the process of “Impeachment” in the “no stone left unturned” manner in which it ought to be prosecuted? That, in such an environment of thoroughgoing institutional cowardice and corruption, “Impeachment” would provide nothing but farcical political entertainment can be predicted with moral certainty simply by studying the history of the last two episodes of real “Impeachment” or near-“Impeachment” of the real Presidents Clinton and Nixon, as documented in such “kiss and tell” books as David P. Schippers, Sell Out: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment and Jerry Zeifman, Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot.

Second, what of real substance could be expected to change for the better if, for recondite political reasons, the necessary majorities of Members of Congress would agree in the cloak rooms that Mr. Obama should be “removed from Office on Impeachment”? Mr. Obama, after all, is merely a symptom, not the underlying cause, of America’s malaise. Removing a single, even very prominent, puppet from the stage will not change the identities of the puppet masters, let alone their ability to bring forth as many new puppets as may be necessary to serve their interests. As long as “Manchuria” exists, it will continue to supply a plenitude of suitable “candidates”. Certainly the departure of Mr. Obama from the scene will not, by itself, return control of their own political destiny to WE THE PEOPLE. The “two” major political parties, and (of more consequence) the factions and other special-interest groups that pull their strings, will remain in commanding positions in the electoral process, in the big “mainstream media”, in the world of banking and high finance, and so on.

Moreover, by itself “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama will not solve any of the problems that now confront this country with the threat of “martial law”—in particular, the impending dethronement of the Federal Reserve Note as the “world reserve currency”, with the consequent collapse of America’s domestic economy in hyperinflation, depression or (most likely) the one followed by the other. Whoever “the Powers That Be” contrive to foist upon this country as President in Mr. Obama’s stead—whether that be “Joe Biden” or some other equally appalling figurehead—must follow the path heretofore laid out for Mr. Obama, because Obama’s successor can do nothing else without impairing the position of “the Powers That Be”. So, even if “Impeachment” were successful to the extent of removing Mr. Obama himself from the office which perhaps he never held in the first place, Americans would still need to revitalize the Militia—which, of course, can (and should) be done without wasting any time and effort on “Impeachment”.

C. At the end of the rope. What can these and other Americans who have neglected revitalization of the Militia, or worse yet actively opposed it by joining the dissident chorus of those who demonize the very word “militia”, belatedly offer in their own defense? That now, as the threat of “martial law” looms large over this country, they are sorry for having misled themselves and countless others too? What good will such a tardy admission be? As of this writing, patriots of all sorts have squandered more than forty-five years since the Gun Control Act of 1968 plastered the agenda of the “gun-control” fanatics across the pages of the United States Statutes at Large for everyone to see, and almost twelve years since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security began the erection and deployment in earnest of a national para-military police-state apparatus. America, moreover, does not have the luxury of another forty-five years, or another twelve years—more than likely not even another four or five years—during which her citizens in sufficient numbers can finally catch on to what is going on, and to what lies at the end of the road down which they are being led.

If Americans want to live in “a free State”, they must bend their every effort—immediately, if not sooner—to restore, protect, and preserve the Constitution. No alternative to an unremitting defense of the Constitution exists, because the Constitution, rightly understood and enforced according to that understanding, provides the only basis for acceptable “government” now available. Nothing else is ready, or even in contemplation, to replace it. Moreover, the great advantage of the Constitution is that true patriots know perfectly well what it really means and how to put that meaning into practice.

According to the Constitution, the Militia are the sole institutions “necessary” for achievement of the Constitution’s ultimate aim, “the security of a free State”. Therefore it is childishly ridiculous to imagine that anyone can defend the Constitution—even as it might be amended by those supposedly well-meaning but naive individuals recklessly calling for a “constitutional convention” of some sort—without demanding revitalization of the Militia. Certainly no proposed amendment which I have ever seen substitutes, or even suggests, something other than “[a] well regulated Militia” as a new institution “necessary to the security of a free State”. The reason is obvious: Who but WE THE PEOPLE themselves, exercising sovereignty through the ultimate Power of the Sword in their own hands, could possibly perform the task of guaranteeing such “security”?

Yes, time is rapidly running out. But perhaps that is not so bad, after all. Although America’s neck is in a noose, perhaps the threat of “martial law” will finally stimulate enough of her remaining “good People” (as the Declaration of Independence styled true patriots) to think about—and then to take action aimed at—revitalization of the Militia before the trap door on History’s scaffold springs open and the threat of “martial law” becomes a fatal actuality. After all, as Samuel Johnson once reputedly quipped, nothing focuses a man’s mind more than his impending hanging.


Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

His recent books include: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…

He can be reached at:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.






  1. I mostly agree with Dr. Vieira. Admittedly he is much wiser in constitutional issues then I am, but I must ask, where in the US Constitution does it say that the states who “create” the Militia?

    My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that the people create the Militia, and then the congress supplies the military arms upon which the Militia must be trained (currently unlawfully going to state LE’s to militarize them and to foreign terrorists and foreign nations) to the state selected Militia officers. who were appointed by the state. They then organize the training as decided upon by the Congress (I am assuming that which is used by the US Military).

    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”.

    As you can see I do have questions here, but I believe that the framers foresaw a day when tyranny was not only federal in nature, but also in some states and the people must still have a Militia and train. I draw those conclusions (mostly) from these statements and the wording in Clause 11, 15, and 16.

    Then there is this in Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.” So I am not positive, but if the ultimate authority belongs to the people themselves, can they not ORGANIZE (founders meaning) state Militias to enforce the state Constitution, and then to guard the elections to see that voting is actually done and counted by the people as it is there voice in government.

    “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a Militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791

    Hamilton, said there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government… if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers… The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair… The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate… If their rights are invaded… How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! (being armed)“

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29: “What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

    Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

    This from George Washington makes me think that he believed that we needed to also see that we could create needed arms ourselves and NOT depend on those who serve within governments.

    “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” George Washington

    Admittedly maybe my opinions regarding this is because I live in California, ran by the most traitorous group of “representatives” in the USA, or at least in the top 3, and I see that enforcement of our Constitution(s) as possibly the only way to fix things here.

  2. I was wrong in thinking that we the people of such-n-such state can organize a Militia since some of our “representatives” are traitors, and that it would be valid without a state Charter.

    It turns out that Colonial Rhode Island (and other states, but RI had the most) had private Militia’s” set up, and they were called “Independent Companies”. They trained regularly in the manner required of organized Militias, conformed to all the state statutes, then applied to become/join the Militia by taking their charter to the General Assembly and if everything was done correctly they were given a Charter to be that state’s Militia or joined with that state’s Militia.

    So there are ways to prepare, but we still have to get our elections honest so that we can put REAL representatives of the people within our state governments.

  3. Cal;

    Elections to correct the problem?

    How many bad Apples are required in a Barrel to spoil the entire contents?

    Because we are not able to replace “in Toto” at one time, how does one see the problem corrected via the voting booth?

    Yes! “IF” We totally revamped the voting system to make it honest and a one for one vote, it indeed would offer some relief. Yet, this will not happen, “You Know This, Right?” So is the vote the answer, surely not.

    This really is a fraud pushed upon us all, vote and change will happen. In 70.5 years on this earth I will say with all and complete faculties this has not come to fruition.

  4. I agree. It is going to be a difficult haul to get rid of the domestic enemies and traitors. But if we can get the Militias up and going, since they include pretty much all of us, that gives us a stronger group then the factions and should make a difference.

    I live in Cali, so wish me and the others LOTS of luck. It is difficult to change things here, though with the also working here a lot it is (slowly, very slowly) getting some changes in.

    I do believe it is up to us because the US Constitution Preamble makes it clear that it IS “We the people” and now we must make the rest believe it also as we can. [Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.]

    California Constitution does the same [Preamble – We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.].

  5. While I agree with the premise that an educated electorate may change current dictums in our favor, it will probably take an inordinate amount of time! However, I fully support the efforts of 912 and Birchers in this endeavor!
    The fed government, as well as the various states, are rife with psychopaths and criminals. How do you rid such entities of psychopaths and criminals? Not by passing ever more laws or trying to convene a “convention of states” in an attempt to change the constitution which one purports to love!

    Unfortunately, there seems but one option, and it ain’t pretty.

  6. With the electorate made up of 50% idiots , illegals and dead people this may not happen.
    The left with the help of the gop, has sent our society in to third world territory. With open boarders fat chance of saving the US. Who was it that said ” The Tree of Liberty has to be bled now and then”. The rule of LAW has become a punch line, and anarchy dominates. The House has the power of the Purse , but they are not using it properly. Bills must be only 2 pages and passed
    on anything with in the Constitution. That’s how we get control. The days of these massive OMNIBUS BILLS is over , if we want our Country back , we have to get the attention of DC.
    Anybody think we can get a million man march on DC ??
    Semper Fi

  7. [QUOTE]”Amazing (at least to me) is how many self-styled “patriots” are actually rather abject appeasers of and collaborators with “the Powers That Be”. This manifests itself most strikingly and sickeningly in the childish fear of “the M word” endemic in these people. How many times have I heard it said, and all too accurately so, that “even most of those Americans who support the Second Amendment do not want to be associated with anything concerning ‘militia’”?”[/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately this includes the Oath Keepers organization. Perhaps it would be a timely move to re-evaluate this position. The Oath Keepers have a tremendous opportunity to kick the Militia’s into high gear all across America with the organization they have in place as well as equal opportunity to pull the various separate militia organizations out there together across America making the whole more of a force to be reckoned with.

    Second thing about this piece that is troubling is that here is yet another talking head that has no idea what the founders were saying when they said “Well regulated”. It had nothing to do with “regimentation”, statutes, organizing, disciplining, or any other synonym with that meaning. “Well Regulated”, in the Old English vernacular, simply meant well practiced, proficient, accurate, and mechanically capable with a firearm. How in the world can the masses of the people ever hope to be proficient with a firearm if they are not allowed to own one in the first place? “We The People” are they whom will be called upon to defend! Therefor their right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

    [Editor’s Note: Don, regarding the Oath Keepers, I do not know how you can criticize us when we have worked for years with gentlemen like Edwin Vieira and James Jaeger to help get the word out about the Militia of the several States as required by the Constitution. Oath Keepers is perhaps the only organization with national outreach that does call for the Constitutional Militia of the several States. We cannot force people to force their respective State legislatures to reinstate their State militia, but we certainly have been advocating for that – for years.

    And, regarding your comment about Dr. Vieira being a “talking head”, I do believe you owe the man a sincere apology. He is anything but a talking head. It is my opinion that he is the foremost authority on the militia of the several States in the entire nation. Please do go get yourself a copy of the CD_ROM book at Amazon – click < here>

    I challenge you to wade through that book and then come back here and try to convince us that Dr. Vieira does not know more about the militia of the several States than you and I both together know. 😉

    Thanks for reading,
    Elias Alias, editor]

  8. All I got to say is, to quote the WWII Japanese admiral….’A rifle behind every blade of grass…”. And to quote a former Marine sniper, “Those SWAT team and Homeland Security “Snipers” AIN’T SNIPERS!
    They’re “sharpshooters”. They roll up in their armored vehicle when the subject is already located and pinned down, get out, and set up. A real sniper just might be already there, already concealed, and, as they get out of the vehicle, ONE SHOT——–You know the rest.”

  9. Sounds like a really great read. I can’t wait to get it. The truly unfortunate thing, though, is that the people who will read it don’t have to, and the people who do, never will. I urge the author to present it in video form, and to offer it for viewing any and everywhere, including YouTube and such websites as Alex Jones’ Infowars.The problem of getting the sheepke to educate themselves about political and economic realities is an ongoing and very frustrsting endeavor, but we must NEVER give up trying to do so, just as our criminal mafia of a government will never cease to spew out their disgusting lies and propaganda. And I will die where I stand before I live as a slave in what has become The Land of the Lie and the Home of the slave.
    Hang in there, Patriots, and God Bless!

  10. It might be a prudent move for everyone within their respective states to create dossiers on all their state officials.

    Because NO election is ever going to fix any of this.

    Know your enemy.

  11. So now what?? I live in “San Diego California, is there a group that we can contact here? I think what every is going to happen is going to happen soon. Is there a support system set up or a group we can become a part of to work together. If you are female and single, I am very concerned. Please respond thanks so much. Catherine

  12. I think Dr. V. is a good example of what’s wrong with Harvard – no ideas for a human society. He uses his Harvard elitist trained intellect to do decadence. Harvard is the richest endowed university in the United States, and we have to listen to this juristic legalistic junk? The problem is how money is thought. We don’t need more talking heads wearing Harvard rings, we need new ideas for a human economy.

    [Editor’s Note: Peter, you’re so full of it I don’t even know where to start on your case. But for starters let’s try this: Please inform us about just what kind of ‘decadence’ you would accuse Dr. Vieira of doing. Be quick about it too, before I change my mind about leaving your ridiculous and totally mal-informed comment on this website. Come on, Budrow – speak up and defend your statement.

    Oh, and btw, did you bother to read the article? Have you read his books?

    Elias Alias, editor]

  13. I cannot speak to the credibility of the author but this article makes his information sound very provocative. However, when I search on the book I find that Amazon is charging $50 for a paperback! If the information is so important for all of us to read, why in the world would he be charging exorbitant prices and alienating those of us hurting most in this current economic situation. For me $50 is a tank and a half of gas or a decent amount of groceries. That makes me question his motives… God bless and Godspeed on this precarious journey!

    [Editor’s Note: Tim, are you a member in Oath Keepers?
    Thank you for getting back with an answer for me on that. I ask because we normally expect our membership to be very familiar with Dr. Vieira’s works. We have published a number of his articles here on our site. We worked well with Dr. Vieira and James Jaeger to produce the movie based on another of Dr. Vieira’s books – MOLON LABE! You can get a copy of that movie here for only $20.00 and the profit we make on that goes to promote the Oath Keepers mission:

    As for the author’s credibility, why not read the article again and see, line by line and paragraph by paragraph, whether he makes sense to you as you read it? Then you can tell us what you do think about his credibility, and why he is credible.

    Thanks Brother,

    Elias Alias, editor]

  14. While the author pooh-poohs the notion of “private militias”, he offers no real path towards reviving our “Constitutional Militia”. We would first have to throw off the yoke of oppression coming from the District of Criminals, and that can only happen by first forming into private Militias.

    Since the Constitution’s only specified mechanism for the preservation of the “Security of a free state” is the Second Amendment, and since the Second Amendment is clear that we have always had our pre-existing *individual* right to keep and bear arms, it seems obvious to me that forming into private Militias has also always been a pre-existing *individual* right “neccessary to the security of a free state.” Both rights preceded the Constitution.

    The two are intertwined. The Second Amendment clearly states that we have always had the individual right to keep and bear arms *and* that we have always had the individual right to form into private Militias.

    The first Militias in America had no “governmental” form or support. They were the products of their local communities. As such, they were very “individual” and “private” in their nature. No one who joined was forced to do so, and no one who joined was forced to remain. It was all done by individual choice. Our Constitution came about much, much later.

    So, the individual right to form into private Militias preceded the Constitution, just like our individual right to keep and bear arms did. Both, therefore, preceded the notion of a Constitutional Militia. One cannot have a Constitutional Militia without first organizing into private Militias. Private Militias are the building blocks for what the author is calling the Constitutional Militia.

    Advocating the restoration of the Constitutional Militia prior to establishing private Militias is putting the cart before the horse. Rather than focus on the goal of eventually restoring the Constitutional Militia, we *must* first focus on the goal of establishing the private Militias which, by definition, have always preceded the Constitutional Militia.

  15. Thank you for your answer. Yes sir I am a member, (#023762). I thank you for the information on the movie and appreciate the Oath Keepers efforts on that. I do my best to keep up on what the website has to offer but my time is limited working 3 part time jobs. I understand it’s just another excuse but time and money are the two things I lack most.
    The article does make sense as took the time to digest the information, that’s why I said it was “provocative”. But my question remains the same as well as unanswered, why so much for a paperback? Please don’t mistake my response as argument as it is not intended that way.
    Thank you again for all that you do!

    [Editor’s Note: Tim, thank you for getting back with me. And thank you for being a member in Oath Keepers. We appreciate your support, and all the moreso now that we know that you are scraping for bucks. Keep the Faith, Brother, and look for an email from “Elias Alias”. Thank you!

    I am sending you an email in the next five minutes, so we can take this discussion off of the website and into email. Please reply to my email and we’ll go from there.

    Elias Alias, editor]

  16. I am 83 years old and have voted continuously since I was 20. I’m a white great grandmother and VERY concerned about my families ability to stay free under this current administration. I know, I know, it’s not any particular group of leaders but as a whole, they all worry me. If you as an author can inform the country why can’t you as an author inform the representatives who we voted into office? It seems they are “unteachable” or brain dead. Either way, someone should force feed your brilliant information to these people for all of our good. Thank you for caring. Marion

  17. I am not a member of OK’s yet. I have spread the word of you for a long time, yet, I am living week to week, as are many of us, relative to finances. One or two car issues can set one back for months! I have not joined, in part, because I have wondered what you all DO, other than the obvious. Edwin’s words need ACTION on the part of ALL of us and OK’s is where I will want to focus my immediate attention. Though NOT yet a member I have asked via email more than once to know who here in central Virginia IS the OK to whom I can communicate, in person! That contact will greatly help move me in the direction of being an official member and participant.
    I will make efforts to meet Edwin in person. His article that you put here (Thank you OK’s!!!) is an outstanding statement and summary. He sums up what many of us feel in our gut with terminology that any layman/woman can understand.
    Divine Providence IS!!! It is up to us to be worthy of It!
    With gratitude for all that OK’s and Edwin have done, are doing and shall do, even better with all of OUR participation,

  18. Mr Vieira states that private militias have no constitutional authority. Who then will organize a state militia? Our elected state government representatives? I think not.
    Vieiera does not give any indication of who CAN form a constitutional militia.
    I submit that since the militia is The People, then we as individuals have not only the right but the duty to form, not private, but peoples militias made up of individual citizens and led by duly elected or chosen leaders. This is not private in any sense, it is wholly public.
    The Minutemen were ordinary citizens who spontaneously took up arms against the British. I don’t believe we could consider them to be a ‘private’ militia.
    I, for one, would welcome some thoughts on how and by whom a militia should be organized.

  19. This what many have needed to hear/read to understand what the 2nd Amendment is and what the 2nd Amendment means. It was clear and direct. God Bless America, AGAIN!

  20. I wonder just how many of our military will be willing to protect us. Oh sure my retired family members would. But how many still active, especially among the younger would turn on the tyrannists in charge in defense of our people. Likely I shall never know, I hope I never know. but God help us; I hope it is the majority of them.

  21. This Constitutional option along with the Constitutional Militia will be a giant leep toward restoring the Republic. COMMON LAW GRAND JURY http://NationalLibertyAlliance.Org/ We should in turn as Oath Keepers participate in the CPT by forming one in our local area. Then when we have a group formed and cross training each other we should then seek recognition and inclusion in our local emergancy organizations to gain legitimacy. Then with that done the patition to the state ledgislation to add our organized unit to the state defence force. There are states that are reestablishing their own state defense forces again which are state militia organizations. If you are looking for people who are Oath Keepers in your area that are Oath Keepers and forming CPT groups and you can find them on the National Forums on this website. If you are not a member and are interested in this program then join and go to the forum to link up with your state chapter. Good Luck and Happy Hunting

  22. Gentlemen,

    We are all very aware of the problems we are facing for the first time in our many years on this planet. The United States has been invaded not just by those coming across our borders at this very moment. Some of those coming into the country are legitimate but some come wishing only to destroy our way of life. Like many of you, I welcome those looking for a better life for their families to pursuit the American dream and liberty we have all long shared. These are the kind of people we want to help and welcome them as one of our brothers and sisters of freedom loving people.

    However, For too long now the leadership of this country has also allowed those wishing nothing more than devising a plan to ‘divide and conquer’ us. For some 45 – 50 years now, we have allowed communist hard liners to come in and establish them self in many communities around the country. Then run and be elected into offices of leadership within these communities. They have worked diligently to accomplish their objective of changing public opinion of many.

    I don’t have to tell you that most of what they have set out to do. They have accomplished by meeting every so often to strategize with one another to best accomplish their mission. I refer you to the document leaked long ago and again just recently. ( The Communist Document of 1963 ) link here. > .

    Just, about every item on this list they have seen through to fruition. That may sound to you like to some of you reading this post an exaggerated statement on my part Should any of you think that. I implore you to read this document. Then if you see any item that has not been swayed into political correctness, tolerance or whatever. Please, tell me I’m wrong ?

    Basically, this is what I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention. I’ll make the rest of this post as short as possible. The reason for posting this was to emphasize the urgency to the leaders of the Oath Keepers and all state militia leaders. Now is not the time to be disgruntled with one another but to be encouraging solidarity in our mission ahead.

    I’m not a military leader or a head of any organization that could unite a mass number of people in order to rally them for a cause. My thoughts are this and this alone. We need those that are in a leadership position that can rally the troops. Hopefully, we can get Mr Vieira, to talk with the retired Generals like Gen. Valley and the other force out Generals of the military to join us so that they can devise a military strategy for those in the U.S. military, militia and citizenry of the United States to follow to take back our country.

    I didn’t set out to make this a long post but I’m very worried and feel that we all need to understand how detrimental this threat is to our country and our way of life. I bow out to those who have the capacity to lead now and will wait in the wings for direction as to what approach we are to take as a united front.

    Thank you,

    [Editor’s Note: William, I feel your emotions about this, as I’m sure everyone does. However, Oath Keepers is not about to organize any “resistance” movement, for we are a completely different kind of thing. We see it as a matter of psychological warfare, a mental war, a spiritual war. An army of angry American citizens who’ve had more than enough of the treachery and treason committed by our corrupt government officials in WDC is not the answer, imo. The cultural Marxists who’ve done the lion’s share of destroying our culture have spent many decades implementing their project. Guns will not change any of that. The American people can turn their backs on WDC and walk away, letting it fall of its own dead weight – if they’re oppressed enough maybe they will become more willing to let it fall.
    But what I wanted to talk with you about is General Vallely. I’d like to invite you to read the bottom two-thirds of a long article which includes a remarkable bit of info about General Vallely. You really should check this out, just so you’ll know what’s behind all his fine rhetoric about the Constitution and why only ex-Military Officers can turn this thing around – all while helping build a private army in Syria and trying single-handedly to co-opt the Tea Party here in the States. Go ahead and read this, okay? Thanks Bro.

    Elias Alias, editor]

  23. Mr Viera – I always understood “…well regulated….” to mean well trained in tactics and use of weapons. It’s an antiquated kind of definition for that term, but I believe it to be more correct than any ‘regulated by laws of the state’ kind of understanding.

    Perhaps you’ve looked into the intended meaning of that particular term in the writings of our Founders. If so, can you confirm my understanding, or correct me with a few examples please? Thank you.

  24. All well and good. Vieira lays it all out, but only in theory. For by not accounting that the American people have become, since the War Between the States, federal citizens (citizen subjects to the federal US government, a status that did not exist prior to the 14th Amendment) Vieira is omitting the fact that the constitutional protections afforded the constitutions of the Union are null and void. You see, citizenship is the most important aspect regarding the structure or form of government. The “one nation” citizenship status that Americans have today, as federal US citizens, negates the structure or form of government originally instituted in these united states, a confederation of nations. Not “one nation”. By transferring citizenship (allegiance) to the federal US government, the principles that the original system of government are based on become null to each American. Citizenship, or allegiance, is a contract, and the right to unlimited contract is protected under Article I, Section 10. Contract makes the law. If Americans wish to place their allegiance in, and participate in, a system of government unlike the original system, the Constitution cannot stand in their way. But having done so, the Constitution can no longer protect them either. So Vieira, and other so called Constitutional Authorities, who do not disclose the whole truth, are telling whole lies.

    [Editor’s Note: frick, Dr. Vieira does not tell lies. I do not know if you’ve read Dr. Vieira’s massive tome on the Colonial Militia of the several States, entitled: The Sword And Sovereignty, but if you would read that you would perhaps not be so insulting to the gentleman. I am going to bring your point up to Dr. Vieira and hopefully get an answer which may cause you to rescind your insult. By the way, I teach every chance I get that the 13 Colonies, by successfully seceding from British rule, became, each and every one of them, a sovereign nation-state Republic. Each such Republic had its own Constitution, judicial system, weights and measures, monetary system etc etc. When they created the General government (Federal government as we call it today) they extended certain enumerated powers to their mutually-created government, and reserved to themselves a certain sphere of sovereignty, as indicated by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The States created the Federal government, yet today the national government acts as if it created the States. That is how I personally see it. If I can reach Dr. Vieira I’ll check back with you here and share his reply.
    Thanks for reading at Oath Keepers, and thanks for your comment.

    Elias Alias, editor]

  25. Thank you, Elias.
    A half truth is a whole lie. Whether Vieira realizes or not (I think he does), omitting the citizenship issue helps no one, nor does it help America. I would be greatly interested in what Vieira has to say. For it is the American people through their federal allegiance (citizenship) that are in violation of the principles of the Constitution, and not the federal US government.
    Wrong thinking will only result in wrong actions.

    [Editor’s Note: Well, frick, I did send your comment to Dr. Vieira’s attention and he graciously sent me a detailed yet concise and brief report on the question of the Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”. I am grateful for his response. When you read the following reply from Dr. Vieira, please recall that no one appreciates being accused of spreading “lies”, as you accused him of doing. But you exposed your flank when you said that “a half truth is a whole lie“. The ball is in your court now. Readers here will see who has come forth with a “half truth” while in reality upholding a “whole lie“. Was it Dr. Vieira, or was it you? By the way, frick, you may notice a slight but fairly contained tone of resentment in his allusion to you below, which I do not fault at all because of your insults. But don’t let the ego interfere with seeing the impeccable logic and genuine knowledge of the sum total of all the parts of the Constitution as they are interfaced and interact to form a whole, a whole which I’m sure all of us would like to preserve – a Constitution dedicated to individual freedom for every American. Dr. Vieira’s lifework has largely been the study of all aspects of the Constitution. Anyone might disagree with him, but wisdom would exclude insults. Here is Dr. Vieira’s reply:

    – – Quoting – –

    Below are my observations on the comment in question:

    (1) All the citizens of the several States were subject to the constitutional powers of the General Government (i.e., the government of the United States) from the date of ratification of the Constitution. That is why statutes of the General Government, addressed to individuals, always have been enforceable against individuals. Or does the commentator believe that such enforcement only began after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified? The commentator claims that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment created an entirely new class of “citizens of the United States” that never existed theretofore. Apparently he has never read certain sections of the original Constitution, which refer to “citizens of the United States”: namely, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2, which states that “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have * * * been seven Years a Citizen of the United States”; Article I, Section 3, Clause 3, which states that “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have * * * been nine Years a Citizen of the United States”; and Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, which states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”. If the Fourteenth Amendment created for the first time in history the category “citizen of the United States”, who were these people serving in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, and as President from the earliest days of the Constitution? The last of these sections even refers to “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. That is, such citizenship actually preceded the Constitution–because the United States already had an organic law, entitled the Articles of Confederation, which applied to the States. If this commentator wants to understand why the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and what it actually did (as opposed to many misinterpretations of it by the Supreme Court), I suggest that he consult Volume 2 of W.W. Crosskey’s Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States.

    (2) The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment, by simply recognizing and applying (at that time primarily for the benefit of the recently emancipated slaves) the long pre-existent category “citizens of the United States”, “negated” the remainder of the Constitution is an absurdity. It did negate the erroneous decisions of the Supreme Court in Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore and Scott v. Sandford; but decisions of the Supreme Court are not the Constitution. The commentator also has trouble keeping his logical ducks in a row. If, as he claims, the Constitution has somehow been “negated”, then of what possible relevance is it that, as he also claims, “the right to unlimited contract is protected under Article I, Section 10”? If the Constitution as a whole has been “negated”, then so has each of its provisions, including Article I, Section 10. So he will have to find some other basis for his claim that “Contract makes the law”–which, if he means that no law is valid as against an individual unless he personally has “contracted” to make himself subject to that law, is without any foundation. I suggest that the commentator would do well to consult Volume 1 of W. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England to obtain an education in the principles of the Anglo-American law with which the Founders of this country were familiar.

    (3) Finally, the commentator’s statement that “If Americans wish to place their allegiance in, and participate in, a system of government unlike the original system, the Constitution cannot stand in their way” would be true if those Americans set up their new “system of government” outside of the territorial expanse of the United States and the several States (unless their actions constituted offences against the law of nations which Congress had defined). It would certainly not be true if they attempted to set up a new “system of government” within that territory. But that sort of idle speculation is not the issue to which my book By Tyranny Out of Necessity is addressed, which is the validity of “martial law” within that territory, under the supposed aegis of the United States and the several States. Long before the commentator and whatever equally deluded individuals he can convince to follow him try to set up a new “system of government” in La-La Land, they will be exposed to honest-to-gosh “martial law” right here at home, unless Americans take appropriate defensive measures within the constitutional framework (that being the only legal framework now available). Apparently, the commentator will be too engrossed in his dream world to aid his countrymen in those measures. I suspect that his absence will not be noticed.

    – – End quote – –

    I’ll await your answer. Thanks frick;

    Elias Alias, editor]

  26. An observation for “Cal”, with regard to “Independent Companies” in Rhode Island during the pre-constitutional period. There is a large section in my book THE SWORD AND SOVEREIGNTY on that subject, quoting in detail from the actual acts of the General Assembly that were involved; as a well as a section on how Independent Companies could be used today to revitalize “the Militia of the several States”. “Cal” is wrong, however, in his description of how Independent Companies operated in Rhode Island. They did not form themselves first, and then ask for approval from the General Assembly. First they sought a charter, and formed themselves after that charter was granted. And, as a part of their charters, their inclusion in the (normal) Militia of Rhode Island was specified. It is usually best when studying matters of this sort to look to original documents, especially the statutes and ordinances which “regulated” the Militia. These documents quite often tell a rather different story from the romantic, even fantastic, “history” that seems to float around so freely on the Internet.

  27. Thank you Elias,
    for the follow up with Mr. Vieira.
    I am sorry that I did not see his comments before today.
    It does not bother me, his “tone of resentment” toward me, it is becoming clear to me that one should expect such tone from those involved in the cover up of probably the grandest conspiracy ever perpetrated upon the American people. I am fully expecting vicious personal attacks towards me following this reply, should there be a response.
    Mr. Vieira,
    let’s begin with “The commentator claims that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment created an entirely new class of “citizens of the United States” that never existed theretofore.”

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; …”- Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition

    You see, I did not make that up.

    Your references to the Constitution containing the term “Citizen of the United States” is deceptive. I have little doubt that you know that that term takes on a different meaning with the 14th Amendment, than it had at the time of the Constitutions ratification in 1789.
    Here is an explanation, with regard to citizenship, of the form of government prior to the citizenship status created by the 14th Amendment;
    From “The South was Right”;
    Northern General Charles Francis Adams, President of the Massachusetts Historical Society, quoted from his address on the occasion of the Lee Centennial at Washington and Lee University:
    “The technical argument—the logic of the proposition—seems plain, and, to my thought, unanswerable. The original sovereignty was indisputably in the States; in order to establish a nationality certain attributes of sovereignty were ceded by the States to a common central organization; all attributes not thus specifically conceded were reserved to the States, and no attributes of moment were to be construed as conceded by implication. There is no attribute of sovereignty so important as allegiance–citizenship. So far all is elementary. Now we come to the crux of the proposition. Not only was allegiance—the right to define and establish citizenship—not among the attributes specifically conceded by the several States to the central nationality, but on the contrary, it was explicitly reserved, the instrument declaring that ‘the citizens of each State should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.’ Ultimate allegiance was, therefore, due to the State which defined and created citizenship, and not to the central organization which accepted citizens whomever the States pronounced to be such.”
    (Italics mine)” (emphasis mine)

    “The South was Right” by S. A. Steel (1914) pages 27 and 28

    You see, an American was considered a Citizen of the United States in 1789 because he was a citizen of one of the States. The 14th Amendment citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government United States, a status distinct from a citizen of one of the States. Thus, another FORM of government different from the original.
    The following excerpt are taken from:
    Page 61. The Reconstruction Problem
    [Speech of Mr. Blaine at a Republican mass meeting in Skowhegan, Maine, Aug. 29, 1866.]
    “In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,—we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that “they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.” And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and our Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives.”

    You see again, I didn’t make it up.

    The Constitution is not negated sir, unless all things being relative, its protections are negated to those individuals that are 14th Amendment US citizens. Contract makes the law. Consent to a form of government not created by the 1789 Constitution would render the principles set under the Constitution’s founding to be negated, as you well know.

    Finally, if it is still asserted that the 14th Amendment does not create another citizen status and form of government (National vs. Federal), please explain this;
    Survey of the Law of Expatriation

    Expatriating a U.S. citizen subject to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the
    ground that, after reaching the age of 18, the person has obtained foreign citizenship or declared
    allegiance to a foreign state generally will not be possible absent substantial evidence, apart from the
    act itself, that the individual specifically intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. An express statement
    of renunciation of U.S. citizenship would suffice.
    An intent to renounce citizenship can be inferred from the act of serving in the armed forces of a
    foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States.
    June 12, 2002

    I await.
    Thank you again, Elias.

  28. In addition to the above discussion between Dr. Vieira and myself, another quote to consider:

    A Treatise on Citizenship, by Birth and by Naturalization
    by Alexander Porter Morse
    Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1881
    (page 32)
    “Recently the Supreme Court of the United States (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U.S.) Rep. 36.) had occasion to consider this title (citizen of the United States) at some length; and it was pointed out that until the passage of a recent amendment (14th), citizenship of the United States had never been authoritatively defined.
    “The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, following the analogy of the civil as well as public law, makes birth within the territory, and subjection to the jurisdiction necessary qualifications of citizenship of the United States by birth. (See Amendment; also, Rev. Stats. U.S., sect. 1992 et seq.)”

    Note how the Fourteenth Amendment makes a distinction between Citizen of a State AND citizen of the United States;
    XIV Amendment
    Section 1. (in part) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND of the State wherein they reside.”

    Citizen and person are synonymous terms.

    I would also like to point out as an aside the word used; “reside”. I find it curious because that word has a legal meaning most are unfamiliar with;
    n. 1) the place where one makes his/her home. However, a person may have his/her state of “domicile” elsewhere for tax or other purposes, especially if the residence is for convenience or not of long standing. 2) in corporation law, the state of incorporation.

    Could it be that a citizen or resident of a State is domiciled in DC?
    You know that DC is foreign to a State just as the States are foreign to each other?
    And that there is no star on the US flag for DC, because DC is not in the Union?
    Just following that logic, It would seem that a citizen of the United States, domiciled in DC a federal US territory not incorporated into the Union, but residing in a State would be a foreigner to the Union, and as such consenting to a form of government different than the form of government created by the constitutions of the states in the Union and the 1789 US Constitution. Which would mean that the principles of which those constitutions are based would be irrelevant to him. No?
    Is it not obvious in America today that American’s unalienable Rights are not protected?
    But then how could they be, when they consent to a National form of government instituted by the 14th Amendment and not the Federal form of government created by the constitutions?
    Why are Americans for the most part unaware of this?

    Finding it difficult in waiting for a reply.
    Mike Frick

  29. Dr Vieira; Thank you Sir for your article, especially as it deals with the necessity of forming the Militias of the several states. May I ask if you are aware of any formal attempt whatsoever to re-establish constitutional militias in even one state? It is a matter of such grave importance that we must uncover a way to bring about a revitalization of the Militias, for failing to do so will most likely allow the criminals in government to succeed in their quest to destroy our Constitution entirely and with it, America.

Comments are closed.