Friends in January 2013, I acquiesce that a tyrant has indeed served as the President of the United States even though said individual had been elected according to procedures outlined in the Constitution of the United States. What else could a President be when he writes:
“…And whereas, the said combinations, proceeding in a manner subversive equally of the just authority of government and of the rights of individuals, have hitherto effected their dangerous and criminal purpose by the influence of certain irregular meetings whose proceedings have tended to encourage and uphold the spirit of opposition by misrepresentations of the laws calculated to render them odious; by endeavors to deter those who might be so disposed from accepting offices under them through fear of public resentment and of injury to person and property, and to compel those who had accepted such offices by actual violence to surrender or forbear the execution of them; by circulation vindictive menaces against all those who should otherwise, directly or indirectly, aid in the execution of the said laws, or who, yielding to the dictates of conscience and to a sense of obligation, should themselves comply therewith; by actually injuring and destroying the property of persons who were understood to have so complied; by inflicting cruel and humiliating punishments upon private citizens for no other cause than that of appearing to be the friends of the laws; by intercepting the public officers on the highways, abusing, assaulting, and otherwise ill treating them; by going into their houses in the night, gaining admittance by force, taking away their papers, and committing other outrages, employing for these unwarrantable purposes the agency of armed banditti disguised in such manner as for the most part to escape discovery…”
“…And whereas, by a law of the United States entitled “An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,” it is enacted that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by that act, the same being notified by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, when such combinations may happen, shall refuse or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto as may be necessary; and the use of the militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the of the ensuing session; Provided always, that, whenever it may be necessary in the judgment of the President to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time…”
“…And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit…”
I now understand these fringe groups arguing that the laws and restrictions placed upon the people are unjust. Look at American history, our ancestors fought for independence from England. People are coming up with individual quotes left and right to prove that the Founding Fathers would support their interpretations.
To think that our Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic as a system of government, and a President feels so high and mighty to suppress the rights of the citizens. Imagine if this President in all his threats actually dared to bring an army into the area to enforce the laws and further suppress the rights of the American people.
There’s no need to imagine. We can always find examples in history. As a history professor, I’ll argue that history does not repeat itself, but I will give you an ease in finding trends on practically anything through a period of time. Like me, I’m sure that you have seen everyone posting all these dates and correlating events in other countries when a means to express and defend rights as an individual had been usurped by the government. Sadly, in the United States we don’t even have to wait for Barack Obama for such an authoritarian outrage.
We can simply blame George Washington. You know that guy who managed to keep an army in the field and not quit against the British. The guy who gave up retirement when our governance system with so much power vested in individual states almost led to the demise of this country. The guy who only spoke at the closing, but chaired the meeting and played a vital role when our present day government was written. That guy who many refer to as the “Father of Our Country.” Yes, George Washington led troops to force Americans to obey the laws of the Federal government when they refused.
I’ll just give you some links from the Avalon Project at Yale Law School from which the above quotes were taken. I’ll also encourage everyone to read beyond the abridged summaries and Pop History, and look at some of the works by scholarly researchers and read the primary documents yourselves and not rely solely upon secondary sources regardless of author. Keep in mind, however, that a single document will not suffice because there are contradictions and evolutions of thought and process. That might not sound fair with so much reading, but we change, so why should their beliefs and ideas remain stagnant.