Saturday, October 13, 2012

The Citizen Soldier




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ... ."16

 

     Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31-53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103-106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the "right to bear arms" is a "limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament" as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to "libertarian political principles," not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).

 

     By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122-134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, "constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation," Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139-140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation," id., at 139, and "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence," id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2-4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17-18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886-887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59-60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts' abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

 

     And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760's and 1770's, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that "[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence." A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone's Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the "right of self-preservation" as permitting a citizen to "repe[l] force by force" when "the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury." 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 145-146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker's Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31-32 (1833).

 

     There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
 

     2. Prefatory Clause.
 

     The prefatory clause reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... ."
 

     a. "Well-Regulated Militia." In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster ("The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations"); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").
 

     Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise ... Armies"; "to provide ... a Navy," Art. I, §8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it--and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
 

     Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms").
 

     b. "Security of a Free State." The phrase "security of a free state" meant "security of a free polity," not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued, see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that "the word 'state' is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community." 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference to the Second Amendment's prefatory clause: "The militia is the natural defence of a free country"). It is true that the term "State" elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase "security of a free state" and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a " 'free country' " or free polity. See Volokh, "Necessary to the Security of a Free State," 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances of "state" in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States--"each state," "several states," "any state," "that state," "particular states," "one state," "no state." And the presence of the term "foreign state" in Article I and Article III shows that the word "state" did not have a single meaning in the Constitution.
 

     There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be "necessary to the security of a free state." See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary--an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
 

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and      Operative Clause
 

     We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
 

     The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress's "command of the militia" could be used to create a "select militia," or to have "no militia at all," but also, as a separate concern, that "[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed." 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508-509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
 

     It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right--unlike some other English rights--was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer's assertion that individual self-defense is merely a "subsidiary interest" of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue--but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right's codification; it was the central component of the right itself.
 

     Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a "novel principl[e]" but rather codified a right "inherited from our English ancestors," Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners' interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8--if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment's guarantee--it does not assure the existence of a "citizens' militia" as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act's requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people's militia that was the concern of the founding generation.
 

B


     Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them--Pennsylvania and Vermont--clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state ... ." §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741.
 

     North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State ... ." Declaration of Rights §XVII, in id., at 2787, 2788. This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia--but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly. See §§14, 18, 35, in 5 id., 2789, 2791, 2793. Many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for public-safety reasons--such as the 1770 Georgia law that "for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections" required those men who qualified for militia duty individually "to carry fire arms" "to places of public worship." 19 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia 137-139 (A. Candler ed. 1911 (pt. 2)) (emphasis added). That broad public-safety understanding was the connotation given to the North Carolina right by that State's Supreme Court in 1843. See State v. Huntly, 3 Ired. 418, 422-423.
 

     The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution presented another variation on the theme: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence... ." Pt. First, Art. XVII, in 3 Thorpe 1888, 1892. Once again, if one gives narrow meaning to the phrase "common defence" this can be thought to limit the right to the bearing of arms in a state-organized military force. But once again the State's highest court thought otherwise. Writing for the court in an 1825 libel case, Chief Justice Parker wrote: "The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction." Commonwealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313-314. The analogy makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any individual purpose at all. See also Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 244 (1983) (19th-century courts never read "common defence" to limit the use of weapons to militia service).


     We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes. Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions--although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson. (It read: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."18 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).
 

     Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them--Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri--referred to the right of the people to "bear arms in defence of themselves and the State." See n. 8, supra. Another three States--Mississippi, Connecticut, and Alabama--used the even more individualistic phrasing that each citizen has the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State." See ibid. Finally, two States--Tennessee and Maine--used the "common defence" language of Massachusetts. See Tenn. Const., Art. XI, §26 (1796), in 6 Thorpe 3414, 3424; Me. Const., Art. I, §16 (1819), in 3 id., at 1646, 1648. That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen's right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. And with one possible exception that we discuss in Part II-D-2, 19th-century courts and commentators interpreted these state constitutional provisions to protect an individual right to use arms for self-defense. See n. 9, supra; Simpson v. State, 5 Yer. 356, 360 (Tenn. 1833).
 

     The historical narrative that petitioners must endorse would thus treat the Federal Second Amendment as an odd outlier, protecting a right unknown in state constitutions or at English common law, based on little more than an overreading of the prefatory clause.
 

C
 

     Justice Stevens relies on the drafting history of the Second Amendment--the various proposals in the state conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one. But even assuming that this legislative history is relevant, Justice Stevens flatly misreads the historical record.
 

     It is true, as Justice Stevens says, that there was concern that the Federal Government would abolish the institution of the state militia. See post, at 20. That concern found expression, however, not in the various Second Amendment precursors proposed in the State conventions, but in separate structural provisions that would have given the States concurrent and seemingly nonpre-emptible authority to organize, discipline, and arm the militia when the Federal Government failed to do so. See Veit 17, 20 (Virginia proposal); 4 J. Eliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 244, 245 (2d ed. 1836) (reprinted 1941) (North Carolina proposal); see also 2 Documentary Hist. 624 (Pennsylvania minority's proposal). The Second Amendment precursors, by contrast, referred to the individual English right already codified in two (and probably four) State constitutions. The Federalist-dominated first Congress chose to reject virtually all major structural revisions favored by the Antifederalists, including the proposed militia amendments. Rather, it adopted primarily the popular and uncontroversial (though, in the Federalists' view, unnecessary) individual-rights amendments. The Second Amendment right, protecting only individuals' liberty to keep and carry arms, did nothing to assuage Antifederalists' concerns about federal control of the militia. See, e.g., Centinel, Revived, No. XXIX, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Sept. 9, 1789, in Young 711, 712.


     Justice Stevens thinks it significant that the Virginia, New York, and North Carolina Second Amendment proposals were "embedded ... within a group of principles that are distinctly military in meaning," such as statements about the danger of standing armies. Post, at 22. But so was the highly influential minority proposal in Pennsylvania, yet that proposal, with its reference to hunting, plainly referred to an individual right. See 2 Documentary Hist. 624. Other than that erroneous point, Justice Stevens has brought forward absolutely no evidence that those proposals conferred only a right to carry arms in a militia. By contrast, New Hampshire's proposal, the Pennsylvania minority's proposal, and Samuel Adams' proposal in Massachusetts unequivocally referred to individual rights, as did two state constitutional provisions at the time. See Veit 16, 17 (New Hampshire proposal); 6 Documentary Hist. 1452, 1453 (J. Kaminski & G. Saladino eds. 2000) (Samuel Adams' proposal). Justice Stevens' view thus relies on the proposition, unsupported by any evidence, that different people of the founding period had vastly different conceptions of the right to keep and bear arms. That simply does not comport with our longstanding view that the Bill of Rights codified venerable, widely understood liberties.
 

D
 

     We now address how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century. Before proceeding, however, we take issue with Justice Stevens' equating of these sources with postenactment legislative history, a comparison that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of a court's interpretive task. See post, at 27, n. 28. "Legislative history," of course, refers to the pre-enactment statements of those who drafted or voted for a law; it is considered persuasive by some, not because they reflect the general understanding of the disputed terms, but because the legislators who heard or read those statements presumably voted with that understanding. Ibid. "Postenactment legislative history," ibid., a deprecatory contradiction in terms, refers to statements of those who drafted or voted for the law that are made after its enactment and hence could have had no effect on the congressional vote. It most certainly does not refer to the examination of a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification. That sort of inquiry is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation. As we will show, virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the amendment as we do.
 

     1. Post-ratification Commentary
 

     Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

 

 

 

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

A Resolution by way of Petition calling for the Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney:SUMMARY OF CAUSE(S):


A Resolution by way of Petition calling for the Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney


SUMMARY OF CAUSE(S):

(1) For the commission of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Office”, acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance in office, acts of “War Crimes” violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996, for failure to faithfully execute laws of this nation, willful disregard for and undermining of The Constitution Of These United States, and failure to fulfill their oaths of office; and

(2) For having violated the fundamental principle of American law, that: “no one is above the law” by acting in defiance of and outside of our constitutional system of checks and balances; and

(3) For ordering illegal electronic surveillance of American civilians without required warrants in clear violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

(4) For having authorized and conspired to commit acts of torture of prisoners in violation of both American and International law; and

(5) For having attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States by means of “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations” against The Constitution since September 11, 2001; and

(6) For having attempted the suspension of the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; and

(7) For coercing the totalitarian Patriot Act through the Congress of the United States; and

(8) For conspiring to commit torture in violation of The Federal Torture Act, Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and The Geneva Conventions as applicable to the United States under Article VI of The Constitution; and

(9) For having conducted massive round ups and incarcerations of foreigners without legal authority; and

10) For having constituted extraordinary mock courts beyond the scope of American law; and

(11) For depriving at least two American citizens of their constitutional rights by military incarceration; and

(12) For subverting The Posse Comitatus Act; and

(13) For having violated First Amendment Rights by authorized illegal acts of transgression against the rights of protection from unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures, free exercise of; religion, speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances; and

(14) For having pursued a policy of “Court Packing” and undermining the judicial independence of The Constitution’s Article III “Federal Court System”; and

(15) For violating: the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, The U.S. War Crimes Act, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and

(16) For reinstitution of “Cointelpro” Program in violation of The Geneva Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention Against Torture, and The Declaration of Human Rights; and

(17) For institution of the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program and the establishment of the totalitarian Northern Military Command for The united State of America; and

(18) For violation of The Equal Protection Clause of The Constitution; and

(19) For violation of The United States Constitution, Federal Law and The United Nations Charter by numerous acts of bribery, intimidation and threats in support of belligerent acts against the state of Iraq; and

(20) For Preparing, planning, and conspiring to engage in a war of aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction resulting in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom have been children. This planning included the threatened use of nuclear weapons, the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, in violation of the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare , The Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, The Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) ; and

(21) For committing the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to The United Nations Charter and international law; and

(22) For planning, preparing, and conspiring to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into a war of aggression against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, The Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and The Constitution of the United States; and

(23) For purposely conspired with others to manipulate the intelligence process so as to defraud United States of America and intentionally mislead and deceive Congress and the American public regarding the threat posed by Iraq so as to justify the initiation of a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371: and

(24) For fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq: and

(25) For subverting the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than: 3300 United States service members, 650,000 Iraqi citizens. approximately $500 billion in war costs, and the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and causing the decades of predictable catastrophe and destabilization of the mid east region created by the invasion of Iraq; and

(26) For purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq; and

(27) For openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States; and

(28) For repeatedly threatened Iran, when we are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence, Article VI of the United States Constitution, to international law Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter that prohibits threats of use of force; and

(29) For acting to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant”, all in subversion of law; and

(30) For arrogating excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers while acting to undermine the authority of the legislative branch and the judiciary by issuing “signing statements” that claim that the executive branch may disregard laws enacted by Congress when the President or his subordinates deem it appropriate, and by the above referenced conduct; and

(31) For the signing and assumption of the grant of powers authorized in The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, without “advise and consent” of The Congress, taking unto themselves dictatorial powers in said unilateral Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency.", such an emergency construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Rick Santorum: Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.





Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.

Dear Mr. Santorum,

Americans understand the unholy, corrupt, corrosive, and criminal; alliance that exists between Pharmaceutical Lobbies and our elected officials, Federal and State and the medical profession that has contributed to the low regard for all concerned.

We despise the political stance taken by most of our “leaders” whole priorities are: (1) Get Elected, (2) Get Re-Elected, (3) Spin out of campaign rhetoric and promise, (4) ignore : your oath of office, the laws of this land, the people’s needs and will and the truth.

We are not arguing or asking you to speak to the easy, popular, “high road” of declaring that government mandating HPV/Gardasil vaccination of America’s young women is dead wrong. We’ll grant you that safe position.

What we are asking you to address as a candidate for the highest elected office in this nation, is the fact that the Gardasil Vaccine has multiple contaminations and is dangerous, having crippled, maimed and killed young women in the nation to the extent that the casualties cannot be sloughed off as acceptable “collateral damage”.

We are asking you to speak to doing the right thing. Can you commit to:

 (1) Taking no campaign money from the Pharmaceutical Industry? 

(2) Can you call for the recall/withdrawal of Gardasil from the market place demanding a full retesting of the vaccine with public input?

(3) Can you support a Congressional Investigation of the roles of the FDA,d CDC and the NCI in the safe certification process and subsequent denial of the harm done thus far?

(4) Can you; will you support a Congressional investigation of Merck Pharmaceutical and manner in which they have marketed the product and manipulated the media, Government Agencies and elected leaders in peddling a fraud-filled campaign of necessity of mandatory universal vaccination of all of America’s young women and attempted to sell the same idea and product to address genital warts in our men?

 (5) Are you willing; will you participate in exposing the corruption in the marketing of this product and hold legally and financially accountable all responsible for the fraud, misrepresentations and blatant disregard of Gardasil’s value and the harm visited upon too many young women of this nation?

(6) Are you willing; will you call for the maximum financial compensation for those women and families ruined by Gardasil?

We ask you to be a part of the solution to problem born greed, perpetuated by influence peddling and executed in the most arrogant of manners, and not a part/party to the perpetuation and cover up of the problems with the Gardasil Vaccine.

Respectfully, Ed. Dickau

 ccs:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

Mitt Romney: Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.





Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.

Dear Mr. Romney,

Americans understand the unholy, corrupt, corrosive, and criminal; alliance that exists between Pharmaceutical Lobbies and our elected officials, Federal and State and the medical profession that has contributed to the low regard for all concerned.

We despise the political stance taken by most of our “leaders” whole priorities are: (1) Get Elected, (2) Get Re-Elected, (3) Spin out of campaign rhetoric and promise, (4) ignore : your oath of office, the laws of this land, the people’s needs and will and the truth.

We are not arguing or asking you to speak to the easy, popular, “high road” of declaring that government mandating HPV/Gardasil vaccination of America’s young women is dead wrong. We’ll grant you that safe position.

What we are asking you to address as a candidate for the highest elected office in this nation, is the fact that the Gardasil Vaccine has multiple contaminations and is dangerous, having crippled, maimed and killed young women in the nation to the extent that the casualties cannot be sloughed off as acceptable “collateral damage”.

We are asking you to speak to doing the right thing. Can you commit to:

 (1) Taking no campaign money from the Pharmaceutical Industry? 

(2) Can you call for the recall/withdrawal of Gardasil from the market place demanding a full retesting of the vaccine with public input?

(3) Can you support a Congressional Investigation of the roles of the FDA, CDC and NCI in the safe certification process and subsequent denial of the harm done thus far?

(4) Can you; will you support a Congressional investigation of Merck Pharmaceutical and manner in which they have marketed the product and manipulated the media, Government Agencies and elected leaders in peddling a fraud-filled campaign of necessity of mandatory universal vaccination of all of America’s young women and attempted to sell the same idea and product to address genital warts in our men?

 (5) Are you willing; will you participate in exposing the corruption in the marketing of this product and hold legally and financially accountable all responsible for the fraud, misrepresentations and blatant disregard of Gardasil’s value and the harm visited upon too many young women of this nation?

(6) Are you willing; will you call for the maximum financial compensation for those women and families ruined by Gardasil?

We ask you to be a part of the solution to problem born greed, perpetuated by influence peddling and executed in the most arrogant of manners, and not a part/party to the perpetuation and cover up of the problems with the Gardasil Vaccine.

Respectfully, Ed. Dickau

 ccs:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

Rick Perry: Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.





Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.

Dear Mr. Perry,

Americans understand the unholy, corrupt, corrosive, and criminal; alliance that exists between Pharmaceutical Lobbies and our elected officials, Federal and State and the medical profession that has contributed to the low regard for all concerned.

We despise the political stance taken by most of our “leaders” whole priorities are: (1) Get Elected, (2) Get Re-Elected, (3) Spin out of campaign rhetoric and promise, (4) ignore : your oath of office, the laws of this land, the people’s needs and will and the truth.

We are not arguing or asking you to speak to the easy, popular, “high road” of declaring that government mandating HPV/Gardasil vaccination of America’s young women is dead wrong. We’ll grant you that safe position.

What we are asking you to address as a candidate for the highest elected office in this nation, is the fact that the Gardasil Vaccine has multiple contaminations and is dangerous, having crippled, maimed and killed young women in the nation to the extent that the casualties cannot be sloughed off as acceptable “collateral damage”.

We are asking you to speak to doing the right thing. Can you commit to:

 (1) Taking no campaign money from the Pharmaceutical Industry? 

(2) Can you call for the recall/withdrawal of Gardasil from the market place demanding a full retesting of the vaccine with public input?

(3) Can you support a Congressional Investigation of the roles of the FDA,CDC and the NCI in the safe certification process and subsequent denial of the harm done thus far?

(4) Can you; will you support a Congressional investigation of Merck Pharmaceutical and manner in which they have marketed the product and manipulated the media, Government Agencies and elected leaders in peddling a fraud-filled campaign of necessity of mandatory universal vaccination of all of America’s young women and attempted to sell the same idea and product to address genital warts in our men?

 (5) Are you willing; will you participate in exposing the corruption in the marketing of this product and hold legally and financially accountable all responsible for the fraud, misrepresentations and blatant disregard of Gardasil’s value and the harm visited upon too many young women of this nation?

(6) Are you willing; will you call for the maximum financial compensation for those women and families ruined by Gardasil?

We ask you to be a part of the solution to problem born greed, perpetuated by influence peddling and executed in the most arrogant of manners, and not a part/party to the perpetuation and cover up of the problems with the Gardasil Vaccine.

Respectfully, Ed. Dickau

 ccs:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

Ron Paul: Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.





Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.


Dear Mr. Paul,

Americans understand the unholy, corrupt, corrosive, and criminal; alliance that exists between Pharmaceutical Lobbies and our elected officials, Federal and State and the medical profession that has contributed to the low regard for all concerned.

We despise the political stance taken by most of our “leaders” whole priorities are: (1) Get Elected, (2) Get Re-Elected, (3) Spin out of campaign rhetoric and promise, (4) ignore : your oath of office, the laws of this land, the people’s needs and will and the truth.

We are not arguing or asking you to speak to the easy, popular, “high road” of declaring that government mandating HPV/Gardasil vaccination of America’s young women is dead wrong. We’ll grant you that safe position.

What we are asking you to address as a candidate for the highest elected office in this nation, is the fact that the Gardasil Vaccine has multiple contaminations and is dangerous, having crippled, maimed and killed young women in the nation to the extent that the casualties cannot be sloughed off as acceptable “collateral damage”.

We are asking you to speak to doing the right thing. Can you commit to:

 (1) Taking no campaign money from the Pharmaceutical Industry? 

(2) Can you call for the recall/withdrawal of Gardasil from the market place demanding a full retesting of the vaccine with public input?

(3) Can you support a Congressional Investigation of the roles of the FDA, CDC and the NCI in the safe certification process and subsequent denial of the harm done thus far?

(4) Can you; will you support a Congressional investigation of Merck Pharmaceutical and manner in which they have marketed the product and manipulated the media, Government Agencies and elected leaders in peddling a fraud-filled campaign of necessity of mandatory universal vaccination of all of America’s young women and attempted to sell the same idea and product to address genital warts in our men?

 (5) Are you willing; will you participate in exposing the corruption in the marketing of this product and hold legally and financially accountable all responsible for the fraud, misrepresentations and blatant disregard of Gardasil’s value and the harm visited upon too many young women of this nation?

(6) Are you willing; will you call for the maximum financial compensation for those women and families ruined by Gardasil?

We ask you to be a part of the solution to problem born greed, perpetuated by influence peddling and executed in the most arrogant of manners, and not a part/party to the perpetuation and cover up of the problems with the Gardasil Vaccine.

Respectfully, Ed. Dickau

 ccs:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

Jon Huntsman: Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.



Gardasil: An Open Letter To The Republican Candidates For The Presidency. Join The Campaign For The Answers And Protect The Young Women Of This Nation From The Unholy Pharmaceutical/Politico Alliance.

Dear Mr. Huntsman,

Americans understand the unholy, corrupt, corrosive, and criminal; alliance that exists between Pharmaceutical Lobbies and our elected officials, Federal and State and the medical profession that has contributed to the low regard for all concerned.

We despise the political stance taken by most of our “leaders” whole priorities are: (1) Get Elected, (2) Get Re-Elected, (3) Spin out of campaign rhetoric and promise, (4) ignore : your oath of office, the laws of this land, the people’s needs and will and the truth.

We are not arguing or asking you to speak to the easy, popular, “high road” of declaring that government mandating HPV/Gardasil vaccination of America’s young women is dead wrong. We’ll grant you that safe position.

What we are asking you to address as a candidate for the highest elected office in this nation, is the fact that the Gardasil Vaccine has multiple contaminations and is dangerous, having crippled, maimed and killed young women in the nation to the extent that the casualties cannot be sloughed off as acceptable “collateral damage”.

We are asking you to speak to doing the right thing. Can you commit to:

 (1) Taking no campaign money from the Pharmaceutical Industry? 

(2) Can you call for the recall/withdrawal of Gardasil from the market place demanding a full retesting of the vaccine with public input?

(3) Can you support a Congressional Investigation of the roles of the FDA, CDC and the NCI in the safe certification process and subsequent denial of the harm done thus far?

(4) Can you; will you support a Congressional investigation of Merck Pharmaceutical and manner in which they have marketed the product and manipulated the media, Government Agencies and elected leaders in peddling a fraud-filled campaign of necessity of mandatory universal vaccination of all of America’s young women and attempted to sell the same idea and product to address genital warts in our men?

 (5) Are you willing; will you participate in exposing the corruption in the marketing of this product and hold legally and financially accountable all responsible for the fraud, misrepresentations and blatant disregard of Gardasil’s value and the harm visited upon too many young women of this nation?

(6) Are you willing; will you call for the maximum financial compensation for those women and families ruined by Gardasil?

We ask you to be a part of the solution to problem born greed, perpetuated by influence peddling and executed in the most arrogant of manners, and not a part/party to the perpetuation and cover up of the problems with the Gardasil Vaccine.

Respectfully, Ed. Dickau

 ccs:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum