Constitutions Cannot Restrain Tyrants
It looks like there's been another escalation in the debate over gun rights in Virginia today. The headline from NPR says, Virginia Governor Declares State Of Emergency Ahead Of Gun Rights Rally.
Fearing potential violence, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is declaring a state of emergency and is banning firearms and other weapons on the Capitol grounds in Richmond ahead of a gun rights demonstration planned for next week.
"We have received credible intelligence from our law enforcement agencies that there are groups with malicious plans for the rally that is planned for Monday," Northam said during a press conference Wednesday afternoon.
Gun rights supporters are preparing to converge on Richmond for a lobbying day and a rally Monday morning. They're opposed to efforts by Virginia Democrats — who've just taken over control of the Virginia legislature following the November 2019 elections — to pass a slate of gun control bills backed by Northam.
Apparently the excuse of internet chatter is sufficient evidence for suspending the law and imposing restrictions upon the people of Virginia. If you're afraid of gun owners and their scary black rifles, this may strike you as a sensible response to a clear and present danger, but reality is quite different. Virginians planned a peaceful assembly to make their opinions known to the government. They plan to carry their rifles as a form of protest. In response, the government has threatened violence against them.
Let's see what Article I of the Constitution of Virginia says about such things. It remains essentially the Virginia Declaration of Rights from 1776, and retains the sentiments of the revolutionary era.
Section 1.
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
I see nothing objectionable here. In fact, this looks more robust than the later Constitution of the United States. However, if we look further, I will show exactly how Northam's announcement lays bare the emptiness of constitutional protections from tyranny.
Section 7
That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.
A "State of Emergency" is by definition a suspension of laws, and the explicit aim of Northam's announcement is injurious to the rights of Virginians. How? Let's read on.
Section 12
That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. [emphasis added]
"The General Assembly shall not pass any law..." but the governor can just make an announcement to the same effect despite this and Section 7 above because of guns? What does the Virginia constitution say about guns, anyway?
Section 13
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
So, the people of Virginia have an explicitly enumerated individual right to own and carry arms without any infringement whatsoever. They have the explicitly enumerated right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, and any restraint is evidence of a despotic government. The suspension of laws by any authority is declared to be injurious of the rights of the people, and may only be done by representatives of the people. According to the plain language of the founding document for the State of Virginia, Northam is in violation of his oath as defined in Article II, Section 7.
All officers elected or appointed under or pursuant to this Constitution shall, before they enter on the performance of their public duties, severally take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ...................., according to the best of my ability (so help me God)."
Northam is citing internet chatter to justify this violation of his oath by comparing this protest to the 2017 white supremacist march in Charlottesville. This can only be interpreted as an effort to smear his detractors through guilt by spurious association. But people revere party and politics above principles. Police obey the political class who pays them, not the people who are extorted for that pay. Constitutions are just words on paper to such arrogant people, and those who seek political power always have a streak of tyranny in their soul. As at the federal level, the state constitution will be used to claim a veneer of legitimacy for any act of trespass, but will be set aside the moment the government finds its restraints inconvenient. The mask of the "public servant" is shed when the subjects show the slightest sign of resistance. We need a better solution, because the Constitutional experiment is an abject failure.
The constitution wasn't a solution for despotic government. The constitution is treasonous to the Articles and Declaration of Independence after all.
There always seems to be an “excuse” to ditch the constitution and do whatever they want. Like you stated, all they have to do is declare an “emergency” and the laws go right out the window.
Guess what happens when you take the guns from law abiding citizens.... the criminals have them and you can’t protect yourself against them. A few bad actors involved with some radical groups have shown a decent way of pushing an agenda. Take the guns...
There is always an excuse to expand government power, and never one to scale it back.
Exactly... “It’s for your safety...”
Just like when we go in for negotiations between the union and the employer. Once the workers give something up... they will never and I mean never get it back.
The people of Virginia would be well within their rights-- and the law-- to ignore his declaration and use their weaponry to forcibly remove Northam from office. Of course, the media would then portray them as terrorists.
Unless they are Citizens, may a citizen rise up against their master?
No. That's a slave revolt and when the media sides with the slavers they'll portray the slaves as the bad guys for striking back.
Another post I'll happily upvote your comment in response to this for... ;)
😄😇😉
That sentence structure makes me cringe, but I appreciate the sentiment.
Quite deliberately intentional, and I'm delighted that it worked... ;)
This is "the problem". We can cast aside the indisputable fact that the convention was not public and everyone there was swore to secrecy and avoid the uncomfortable discussion about the clear treason to the people who tasked the representatives to adjourn and instead presume that the constitution is lawful (the excuse that the means justified the ends is forever on the lips of apologists), then the constitution is to be judged on it's logical soundness of which there's no disagreement over. I ask you, would a better worded charter curb, and least prevent the usurpation of Servant over Master? No, you don't actually want a better worded work contract, what you want is a Servant that doesn't break their contract, but what you need is a Master that cares to do something about his Servant's usurpation, but what you have are a bunch of Servants (the dutifully and unquestionably accepted, the citizens) of the Servant (the so called government) that haven't a clue about how to hold a Servant accountable, they are but citizens that may at most petition the boss, because logic states that a Boss doesn't petition their employees, they fire and hire on any whim, and the only legitimate logical conclusion of how a Master ends up working for their own Servant whilst the Servant in turn claims to Serve the Master it employs is that both logic and reason have been subverted so much by the Servant that they have completely bamboozled the Master, so that even those aware of the plain as day role reversal, think it was simply a matter of a better worded work contract, Constipated 2.0. So what to do? Make some role reversal, or keep petitioning a fraud to stop defrauding you and your neighbors.
We are the Public, the Subjects of our Public Servants, and we demand of our public servants to stop being our Lords and Barons.
Pfft.
Yeah, the unilateral contract that the Constitution is is to blame, those words somehow failed to convey the fraud that was being spun, but if you look at it, what started this were the Articles that failed at keeping the Servant from Treason to begin with, but then you can't blame people, only ideas since everyone knows what a bunch of saints the founding fathers were.