Search

The Prophet's Blog 20

Direction in an Age of Confusion

20 Years of Prophecy Fulfilled

Chapter 4 (C)

'The CHAZ Principle'


Bill of Rights III Safety and Safeguards

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

What is this about? As the prophet speaking for a moment, regarding Direction in an Age of Confusion, what is the quality of life for family and communities under siege without law or order, if as suggested in these chaotic times we ‘de-fund’ any of our local, county, or state law enforcement?


In areas where for decades, with protection in place, the ‘officers of the law’ overall are family and community members themselves, and the majority of them have served, faithfully, for years or decades, as our safety and security ‘protectors’. They are not housed within our homes; we are not forced to allow them access without cause or warrant. We are secure within our rights to defend ourselves from predators or anyone who physically threatens our lives or property, with just cause.

So in the Prophet’s view, of past, present and future, what is our belief system in ‘Justice’? Do you the reader, or I as the writer, suggest any reasonable alternatives to the methods we have embraced since 1776?


Or do we want soldiers in our house (domestic or foreign)?

Do we desire martial law on a daily or any semi-permanent or permanent basis?


These are the precepts, for why we have the rights of privacy and peace that are the foundation of our lives:

Largely as punishment for the Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament enacted the Quartering Act of 1774, which required the colonists to house British soldiers in private homes as well as commercial establishments. The mandatory, uncompensated quartering of troops was one of the so-called “Intolerable Acts” that moved the colonists toward the issuance of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.

This quartering was among the grievances Thomas Jefferson listed in the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, he accused King George III of keeping “among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent or of our Legislatures,” and “quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us.”

After the American Revolution, the constitutional framers debated whether the United States should even have a standing army. The federalists won that debate, but James Madison wrote the Third Amendment for the Bill of Rights to guarantee that the federal government couldn’t force local governments, businesses and citizens to house U.S. soldiers.

“Ultimately, the founders decided that a standing army was a necessary evil, but that the role of soldiers would be only to dispel foreign threats, not to enforce laws against American citizens,” writes journalist Radley Balko for the American Bar Association Journal. Balko adds, “For the first 50 years or so after ratification of the Constitution, military troops were rarely, if ever, used for routine law enforcement. But, over time, that would change.”

Since the Third Amendment’s ratification in 1791, the U.S. Supreme Court has only mentioned it a couple of times. One instance is the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer. In order to sabotage a national steel strike during the Korean War, President Harry Truman had issued an executive order to seize and operate the country’s steel mills.

The court ruled the president didn’t have the authority to seize private property without an act of Congress. In the majority opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson used the Third Amendment, which prohibited forcible quartering during wartime without congressional approval, to illustrate the court’s decision: “even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress.”

The amendment simply means that during times of peace the government may never force private individuals to house, or “quarter” soldiers in their homes. During times of war, the quartering of soldiers in private homes may be allowed only if approved by ​Congress.

In the 1982 case of Engblom v. Carey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that:

“Under the Third Amendment, National Guard troops count as “soldiers”;

Citation: Longley, Robert. "The Third Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning." ThoughtCo, Oct. 2, 2020, thoughtco.com/the-third-amendment-4140395.

Martial Law 1

A system of complete control by a country's military over all activities, including civilian, in a theoretical or actual war zone, or during a period of emergency caused by a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, with the military commander having dictatorial powers.

In the United States martial law must be ordered by the President as commander-in-chief and must be limited to the duration of the warfare or emergency. It cannot result in a long-term denial of constitutional rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to a trial, and to free press.

Martial law was ordered in contested areas during the Civil War (but the Supreme Court ruled President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional), and during the San Francisco earthquake and fire in 1906 when the city was in ruins, tens of thousands were homeless, and looting and disease posed great dangers to the public.

Misuse of martial law, such as destruction of the veteran's encampment in Washington D. C. under President Herbert Hoover, has proved unpopular in the United States. In many foreign countries martial law has become a method to establish and maintain dictatorships either by military leaders or politicians backed by the military. Martial law is not to be confused with "military law" which governs the conduct of the military services and applies only to service men and women.


Martial Law 2

The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory.

Martial law is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos. According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaing (Duncan v Kahanamouku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S.Ct 606, 90 L.Ed.688 (1946). However, most declarations of martial law have some common feature. Generally, the institution of martial law contemplates some use of military force.

To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom from association and may be suspended (this writ allows persons who are unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding.)

In the United States, martial law has been instituted on the national level only once, during the Civil War, and on a regional level, only once, during World War II.

Otherwise it has been limited to the states. Uprisings, political protests, labor strikes, and riots have, at various times, caused several state governors to declare some measure of martial law.

Martial law, on the nation level may be declared by Congress OR the President. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that “the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress.

On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitutions. Martial law usually is used to try to restore and maintain peace during civil unrest. It does not always yield the results.

In May 1970, for example, Ohio governor James Rhodes declared limited martial law by sending in National Guard troops to contain a Kent State University protest against the Vietnam War. Four protestors were shot and killed by the troops. In a case brought by their survivors, the Supreme Court held that the governor and other state officials could be sued if they acted beyond the scope of state laws and the federal Constitution. (Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974).


Martial law is generally an act of last resort. Courts will uphold a decision to use troops only if it is necessary and proper.

Cite.Martial Law. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008) Retreived October 20, 2020 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Martial+Law


It is October 24, 2020, and the situation in the west coast U.S., referred to in this Blog, noted today, is the an example of the logical foresight of James Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


· The amendment simply means that during times of peace the government may never force private individuals to house, or “quarter” soldiers in their homes. During times of war, the quartering of soldiers in private homes may be allowed only if approved by ​Congress.


· Martial law was ordered in contested areas during the Civil War (but the Supreme Court ruled President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional), and during the San Francisco earthquake and fire in 1906 when the city was in ruins, tens of thousands were homeless, and looting and disease posed great dangers to the public.


· What are CHAZ ZONES?

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zones are established in city communities around the country, by the method of civil unrest, occupy, takeover, and destruction of private property by force.


In Seattle Washington, a take-over began on June 8, 2020. It was not a ‘block party’ as claimed by the Mayor Jenny Durkan. Lasting nearly a month, its inhabitants appeared as peaceful as the anti-war demonstrations and ‘flower children’ protests of the Vietnam War. At night, according to many media journalists, present filming and reporting there, the looting, fires, destruction of property was not the worst offense of violations against other human beings, it was in fact, stated this way by Police Chief Carmen Best (a female black officer) “Our calls for service have more than tripled,” she said (video below). “These are responses to emergency calls — rapes, robberies, and all sorts of violent acts that have been occurring in the area that we’re not able to get to.”


CHAZ welcomed armed “gun club civilians”, the members of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club (PSJBGC)— to protect their ‘illegal occupation territory’. The club is often asked to provide security for protests (like a member setting fire to an ICE parking lot), and rallies around the Seattle area, and while their involvement in CHAZ is structured more loosely, the presence of ‘armed civilians’ has raised a few eyebrows.”


The cost of damages to homes, businesses, infrastructure, personal property, is estimated at $ 409 Million Dollars? Police forced to evacuate, while the ‘block party’ continued? The Mayor and Governor permissively step back and think that the federal government should use our tax dollars from hardworking victims of this purposeful blitz offensive, death and devastation of innocent lives?


Essentially consider this Blog as a continuation of Chapter 4 (B) with the exactly the same methods of Basis, Method of Change, and INTENDED results,


III. Quality of Life

Quality of Life: 1) Areas of Change, 2) Basis, 3) Methods of Change, and 4) Intended Results

Area:

Safety & Safeguards

Basis:

The Federalist Papers

The Bill of Rights Amendment III

"nothing less than the existence of the UNION”

capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice

disunion is viewed as the prologue to foreign intrigue, military establishments, and civil war

dangers of foreign influence & force

the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist

the means of defense must be "commensurate to the danger of attack”

Method of Change:

States should either be wholly disunited, or

only united in partial confederacies, then subdivisions (electoral vote)

have frequent and violent contests with each other

rival-ship and competitions of commerce

different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power;

divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity,

factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, by intrigue, by corruption, or

by other means, betray the interests, of the people

common motive to invade the rights of other citizens

Intended Results

Government Authority

spread a general conflagration through the other States & its residents

reach almost the last stage of national humiliation

imminent peril for the preservation of our political existence

no troops, nor treasury, nor government to defend individuals

oppose general considerations of peace and justice to the impulse of any immediate interest or passion

nourish the intrigues of foreign nations


Finally according to The Federalist Papers page 76, paragraph 3:

This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities (like Seattle), or States. It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.


Now, it is time to decide your answers to these questions:

  • What was your life like twenty years ago? Ten years ago? Five?

  • Is your life better or worse? Quality of life, peace, stability, health, in what ways….

  • Is society and community around you is as a whole, better or worse?

  • If your life and the lives of your children or family, in the future is to be determined by your decisions and actions of ‘today’, --what are you going to change? Or do?

Because.. it doesn’t have to be this way…

We can get back to the ‘Safety & Safeguards’ Basics…. https://youtu.be/XHCWhm8fmig








6 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All