Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read and carefully consider.  And please don't miss viewing the embedded video below by Dr. Edwin Vieira. 

More and more people are reading and considering the principles contained in the U.S. Constitution.  This is especially true as our economic system is now so quickly deteriorating under the current tyrannical administration.  The moral foundation of the Constitution is in the Declaration of Independence and its principle of equal rights. Under the Constitution, government was to be limited to protecting those rights.

Government, whether state, local or national, is an agency for defending life, liberty and property. As such government is not a force for the redistribution of wealth or the conferring of economic favors. 

The problems we now face are not exactly new.  In 1969 a Professor H. Verlan Anderson, BYU stated the following:

"The Constitution originally granted to government the power to use force against the individual only for the purpose of defending the nation, punishing evil (crime), adjudication and enforcing property rights, and compelling each citizen to bear his fair share of the burden of performing these functions.  That is all!"

"[...] if we the people fail to incorporate into the affairs of our government the principles of private morality which it teaches, we cannot hope to escape the fate of other nations who have gone to their destruction following the same path we are now taking."

We find this statement from John L. McClellan, U.S. Senator, Chairman, Government Operations Committee in his book, Crime without Punishment, 1963:

"I have a profound faith in America.  I am confident that when the American people read from the record . .  . and become fully cognizant of the extent of the crime and corruption which festers in our midst, they will demand action . . . .  The principal and basic weapon that must be provided is a resurgence of old-fashioned morality in the nation.  Apathy must go; it needs to be replaced by the outraged righteousness of a people who rose to greatness in this world through the spiritual values that their forefathers wrote into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. . . . We cannot, we must not, shirk our responsibility. . . . This challenge can be, and it must be, faced with resolute purpose and effort."

We can thus see that we have begun to govern in ways not recognized in the Constitution.  As a result our federal government has become less limited, our our liberties less secure.  But for the recent "self-study" programs begun by the American citizens, we find that true civics education in America -- education in the Constitution -- has largely died out.  This occurred over several generations.

We must return to the words of our framers of the American Constitution who combined the best political ideas of the past with innovations in what The Federalist called an improved science of politics:  federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances.  In so doing, they created our proper form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, "no model on the face of the earth."

In his book published in 1968, America is in Danger, General Curtis E. LeMay, U.S. Air Force wrote, "...The point of no return is almost upon us, the danger is real. It is pressing.  I suggest it is always a good strategy to stand up for the right, even when it is unpopular.  In far too many circles the Constitution has been unpopular ... we can now see where that has taken usl

"Arizona has enacted a law that enables state and local police to support federal immigration enforcement, in a carefully circumscribed manner. This moderate statute is under vicious attack by the Obama administration and assorted amnesty advocates. Yet Arizona and her sister states in the Southwest could take dramatically stronger actions to bring order to the border. And they would have both history and the Constitution on their side.

For one thing, Arizona can form and expand its own state militia. Such forces were common when our nation was founded, and the Second Amendment recognizes that a "well-regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." In short, Arizona and other states can raise and arm their own military forces. But, for what purpose can such forces legally act?

The Constitution is informative here. In Article IV, Section 4, the federal government is required to "protect each [state] against Invasion; and [on request of the state government] against domestic Violence." As St. George Tucker noted, this provision guards against "the possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government," for example a "sectional" president who might, for political reasons, decline to protect states in a certain region. Today the federal government, at the direction of the president, has declined to carry out its duty under Article IV. Leaving aside its other possible consequences, this intentional failure to protect Arizona raises the question of what action the state is now entitled to take under the Constitution.

This brings us to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

So, the militias organized and armed by a state may go to war when the state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. This is clear under Article I, and plainly justified when the federal government has deliberately failed to protect against invasion as required by Article IV. As Joseph Story explains in his treatise on the Constitution, the prohibition against states engaging in war is "wisely" limited by "exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and not justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union."

At the time of our nation's founding, the states surrendered certain limited powers to the federal government. Logically, foremost among the enumerated powers delegated to the new central authority were those relating to foreign affairs, including the war powers. But the states were prudent; they had a logical concern that if the federal government should fail in its duty to protect them from "invasion" or "imminent danger," perhaps for reasons of political "partiality," then the states should have a robust right to defend themselves, including by armed force. And so they do."