See other Resistance Articles
Title: Daryl Hannah and Elderly Land Owner Arrested for Trespassing on Land Stolen Under Eminent Domain
Source:
infowars
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/daryl-hanna ... d-stolen-under-eminent-domain/
Published: Oct 7, 2012
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2012-10-07 07:39:40 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 1292
Comments: 83
Actor Daryl Hannah and an elderly land owner were arrested in Texas on Thursday for criminally trespassing on land stolen under eminent domain. From the Washington Post: Hannah and landowner Eleanor Fairchild were standing in front of heavy equipment in an attempt to halt construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Fairchild’s farm in Winnsboro, a town about 100 miles east of Dallas. They were arrested for criminal trespassing and taken to the Wood County Jail. In August, a court in Paris, Texas, ruled that the Canadian energy company has the right to build a pipeline on private land despite widespread opposition by land owners. The transnational corporation is exploiting a loophole in Texas’ oil and gas regulation, according to the New York Times. In Texas, if a company qualifies as a “common carrier” the state allows it to condemn land without the consent of land owners, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which state “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” As the founders knew, property ownership is a natural and unalienable right. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In 1766, English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote that there are three natural rights: the right to personal security, the right to personal liberty, and the right to private property. In America, circa 2012, we have mostly lost the sense of this and have allowed the state to steal our private property under “eminent domain” without much of a fuss. As William Norman Grigg notes, the Fifth Amendment has unfortunately served as “one of several Hamiltonian-mercantilist Easter eggs covertly embedded in the Constitution…” The familiar civics class platitude describes this provision as necessary for the construction of bridges, hospitals, and other amenities that are supposedly “public goods” only government can provide. The inescapable reality is that eminent domain is a particularly vulgar form of plunder used to enrich the political class and their corporate cronies at the expense of the rest of us. Predictably, the state has characterized the theft of private property as job creation in order to get the commoners to accept the act of corporate rape as somehow beneficial. In April, as partisan politics played out as usual, House Speaker John Boehner lambasted Obama for his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. “He should listen to the voices of the American people and unlock the project so we can get Americans working and address high gas prices,” said Boehner. This, of course, does not include the voices of the Tar Sands Blockade carried out by a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and environmental activists opposed to TransCanada’s use of eminent domain to steal private property for the pipeline.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: GreyLmist (#22)
it's nice to know we have another very bright lady here!
As for the militia, we citizens are that militia. And the reason why we are the militia is to prevent professional standing armies from taking their position at your doorstep which violates the Fourth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was intended for this purpose and had nothing to do with squirrel hunting. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps an able-bodied citizenry from being attacked by an enemy government. A government that no citizen should EVER put their trust in at all. A citizen should be very vigilant and WATCH what those people in D.C. are doing. That is the reason why we are the militia and is the reason why that cockroach of a teacher is afraid of an armed citizenry. I agree with your views there and I'd like to say absolutely. I should clarify that being drafted by law into State Militias doesn't mean that everybody of age would be forced to muster against their will for organization and regulated training in what the Federal government refers to as the unorganized Militias of the States (for its purposes of distinguishing between State-level and National Guard-level Militia forces). I don't see much of an opt-out problem with those of the State Militias who prefer to stay unregimented. I think they'd still be considered as part of the Militia, just as before and after age-bracket call ups, of course, but the Constitution does formally specify a more disciplined level of training, imo, as being necessary to effectively secure a free State. Am open to hearing other thoughts about it, though, from you and others. Edited for spelling and highlighting for clarification. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Gadzooks! scrapper2 hath speedily repelled out of the blue into yon upper sector. Whatever shall we do? lol Just jokin' :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Standing ovation and applause! If Sandra Day O'Conner and NOW, et al. Feminazis really think they're physical equals with men or better in combat zones, they should be in favor of women on the frontlines with no male backup.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Indeed! Unfortunately, Sandra Day O'Connor mistakenly believes that sitting in the SC court room today and glaring at the SC Justices as the University of Texas affirmative action policy is debated constitutes "enough" front line battle as her AA selected SC self can handle. AA for the female gender should include Selective Service sign up. "Equality" should not be a one way street to success - some heavy lifting and SACRIFICE are in order as well.
Good heavens no. All units fully integrated, gender equal, luck of the draw. No powder rooms in the jungle or the outback, no privacy, kill or be killed, "every person on their own".
A nation that sends its women to war has become quite rotten inside. A very large tree, hollowed out by disease and vermin, will collapse in even the slightest wind.
Can't argue with that.
I say we waive discriminatory age-limit barriers too so that she and others like her in the overage bracket can be treated fairly and equally to actual combat frontline duty. I agree up to and including heavy lifting. I think I know what you mean by the rest of your statement...like no specially comfortable quarters and such. If so, I agree on that too. If they and their egos don't get in the way of our men and their Military performance by "PC" propulsion, that would be more as it should be, imo. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Be reasonable, Cyni. No women attached to male Combat Arms Units. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
But that is where the marxists and moral reductionists are taking us. I for one wish that we were less concerned with the practical consequences of waging perpetual war sponsored by a State consumed by fanatical egalitarianism. If we put down the damned gun and got back to inventing things and letting folks get back to the business of making life better for themselves, I'd be fine with it, and so would a lot of other people that I know. But no, we'll have no suck luck. We are and have for quite a damned long while been in the merciless hands of Wilsonian crackpots who want us to march around the planet blowing up stuff and making the world free for what it is I'm not quite sure. Very difficult to be reasonable with the PC feminism onslaught going on. It shames me personally, being from the olde school, when I check the number of young girls that have been killed in the Middle East. The last time I checked, there were sixty or more that have died for nothing. There is a reason the government hides such figures as much as possible. If NO YOUNG GIRLS JOINED THE MILITARY, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DRAFT FOR MEN OR WITHDRAW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. Each Navy carrier that sails usually has a female compliment of at least ten percent, that is over 600 young girls. If one does the math, the military has, there is no way they could sail without the females. Being from the olde school, it makes me sick. If we are to wage endless war, at least do it with men.
No it does not specify a more disciplined level of training. That is why Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311 part (b) exist. See here: Title 10 USC Sec 311 (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The reason it exist is because too many lawyers, and even some Supreme Court Justices have either tried to omit this law or were unaware it ever existed or feigned ignorance of this statute. The reason the part (b) exist as it does is to reinforce the reader of those inalienable Constitutionally protected rights. Remember that regimented militias go in the same category as the National Guard which is the real legal professional standing army under the control of the State Governor. And regimented militias can be infiltrated by traitors. You are aware of this I am sure. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco as the example of why I stress this so well. Both were infiltrated by people working within the government who wanted to destroy these militias and religious groups. Militias are lawful and legal but there are always hostile elements working tirelessly withing our government who strongly desire to dismantle the Second Amendment altogether. And they dismantle it by playing semantic games with peoples minds because they think we are too damn stupid to figure it out. To them, if we don't know our rights then we don't have any and they ain't gonna tell us what they are either. And when you become part of that group of "disciplined" level of training, you are always setting yourself up for betrayal by those you'd least expect in your group. Some of those members live a double life and they are not loyal to your cause or to the United States of America at all. They are loyal to their handlers and to the Intelligence community that they are prostituted to.
The only things that we're free of are peace, prosperity, and freedom itself.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken i know! i know! i'm always happy to see scrap. ;)
i had NO idea the number was this large.
The Navy does not care to publicize the fact. They also admit that over ten percent of the young ladies will become pregnant during the six months at sea. So many that the Navy medical corp is now prepared for childbirth, if need be, while at sea. Some admit to getting pregnant so they will be taken off ship and flown home.
It's not that I'm not willing to defer to your expertise on the matter. You probably do know more overall about the subject than me. First of all, though -- without getting into a debate about Ruby Ridge and Waco particularly -- Constitutional State Militias are legitimate State Citizen Defense Forces and not just at the National Guard level. It should be considered a Treasonous Act of War to infilitrate them through subversions to undermine, weaken, and fragment State Defenses, imo. Some stand alone, ad hoc paramilitary groups might proclaim themselves Militias of their State or independent/anarchal Militias that aren't encumbered by law in their opinion, but protection of their State and citizen safety or Freedoms isn't necessarily always their agenda, as I think you know. Edit to add: Not to say that some aren't genuinely motivated patriotically to be their State's Militia guardians, sparse in ranks though they may be since the Clinton era of Militia villifications. Next, on the Militia Acts of law -- I think prior to those, all able bodied [free] male citizens of a State were expected to be armed and well trained regularly and on call. The general, able bodied citizen population of a State (now not on call with regularity for training or duty except if an attack is immenent or in process somewhere within the State or there's a State crisis) are still of the State's Militia but my reading is that the Militia Draft concerns a certain age- bracket of the citizenry automatically for more regimented training to effectively secure the State and that the National Guard are an expected quota of those from that group (or even the population at large if qualified by age- waiver, for example) who Volunteer (are not automatically assigned) for regimented dual service at the Federal level too. So, there is a more Unorganized group that is the unregimented general population of able bodied State citizens, a Drafted age-bracket group of regimented training for effective State security and a Volunteer group of regimented training for effective State and intra-National security that is comprised of those who may or may not be of the Drafted age- bracket group. Then there's also the matter to consider that the States have the power to go to War to protect themselves against invaders and the problem of who would be left as regimentally trained well enough to defend the State and citizenry if the National Guard is the only group of the Militia expected to be drafted into regimental training but the National Guard units happen to get downsized, duplicitously or not, by a Federal duties call up to somewhere else in-country that leaves the State more vulnerable to harm or a takeover. The National Guard are supposed to be like Joint Task Force Volunteer Units, not just Drafted by age as if such. If I'm wrong in your estimations about any of that, please let me know. I can't say that I've studied as much as I should of Dr. Edwin Vieira's works on the topic of Constitutional State Militias but that's my basic understanding of it at this point on those distinctions. Edited for an addition at the end of paragraph 1 for claity, bracketed insert and rewording at paragraph 2, rewording of the 3rd, and a grammar insert + punctuation at the 4th. This has been a lengthy work-in-process that I hope is clear enough and do think is actually done now. Thanks for reading the revised editions. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You wonder how long an organization can or will be willing to deal with that kind of overhead when things get serious. Forever. It creates more dependent constituents. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken One more dependent on the payroll plus all medical bills are paid for by the taxpayers.
Heck'of'a'deal!
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken Interesting story but it seems like there is something missing. Utility companies throughout the country work with property owners for "right of way" access rights. It's a common occurrence; copper and fiber optic telephone lines, gas lines, sewer lines, etc. Why was it necessary to foreclose on the entire property? There's a natural gas pipeline going through a property of a private residence right down the road from me. Maybe there is some law saying that the pipeline must be a certain number of feet from a dwelling for safety reasons.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT! You're on a roll today, CyniLod! I like this thread. So many interesting discussions going on civilly. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I can't say that I've studied as much as I should of Dr. Edwin Vieira's works on the topic of Constitutional State Militias but that's my basic understanding of it at this point on those distinctions. So what you are proclaiming is that militias that are not part of some state citizen defense force are not really legitimate as far as the 2nd Amendment applies to? I tend to disagree there. I have not read nor heard of any of Dr. Edwin's Vieiras works on Constitutional State Militias. Viera sounds like they are discussing militias specifically from a State Defense issue which sounds like that of the collective right. And in a collectivist society a collective right is one where you do not have rights but privileges granted by the government. And with privileges you have to register them. With Rights you do not register them. But I have read Stephen P. Holbrook's book http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/c...quote.pl?stephen_holbrook Also here http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html where at the end of the cite he is referenced by the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Dept of Justice "That Every Man Be Armed was cited as authority by the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right" (2004), http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm, and in the following judicial opinions: Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 939 n.2 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring) Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 577 n.53 (9th Cir. 2003) (Kleinfeld, J., joined by Kozinski, O'Scannlain, & Nelson, dissenting) United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598, 603-09 (N.D. Tex. 1999) Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1052 (R.I. 2004) (Flanders, J., dissenting)"
Yeh - this one's swerved all over the board. 1. Getting our gender assignments correct was a plus. 2. In my family's personal experience, Mrs.Fairchild's only recourse is to take a well-prepared case to state district and sue Keystone for all damages (real and imagined) that were not compensated when her land, and all easements, were condemned. A jury of her east Texas peers would likely see things her way, bigtime. 3. Now to go deal with the laundry. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken I'm not sure where you're seeing that about enforced gun registration in the issues we've discussed or privileges granted by the government rather than unalienable rights. I don't think that citizens who prefer to opt out of State Citizen Defense Forces have a lesser right to be armed but then they'd likely not even want to be considered as necessary to the security of a free State, as the Constitution addresses. I don't think the Constitution speaks of the Militia as just whatever someone or some group wants to call it on their own terms. Not to say there's a prohibition against calling themselves some other from of Militia not attached to the State but neither would I consider it a Treasonous Act of War if they were infiltrated like I would if State Militias were. Am not familiar with Holbrook but thanks for the link. Will check it later. I think you'd like Dr. Edwin Vieira.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I should be doing laundry too. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
It says it plain in site that we are the militia. And that the second Amendment applies not jut to the organized State (and Federalized) militias but also applies equally so to the individual right as well. I have read some of Dr. Edwin Viera's works and he plainly discusses Militia from a Statehood Right where they are organized and controlled by the Governor. His view is contrary to what the Supreme Court has already ruled in their decisions couple years ago that the 2nd Amendment is an individual inalienable right. Now how does all of this discussion on the 2nd Amendment relate to this thread? Well, lets just say that I hope that Eleanor will not have to take defense to gain access to her own property by means of arms. She does have that right and if I were her I would do it!
An easement does not deny access to anyones' land; you know that. Typically, they are 50' in width, although that's negotiable, and nothing about an easement prevents landowner from grazing the land or otherwise using it as long as they do not disturb/destroy/damage the utility involved. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken No, but an enclosed fence does. And especially if there are "No Trespassing" signs posted which gives the intended trespasser advanced Notice. http://www.infowars.com/daryl-ha...len-under-eminent-domain/ From the source of this thread read an interesting comment below: Jethal says: October 7, 2012 at 6:09 am My family co-authored the Texas Constitution of 1876. Under Texas state law, Daryl Hannah and this elderly land owner were illegally arrested and jailed.
I'm not aware of any fencing of the easement. Here's a reply from a guy posting on junkscience.com re: pipeline experience - One Response to Keystone XL pipeline is issue of property rights for some ranchers Allen Brooks | July 30, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Reply In the 1970′s a natural gas pipeline was built from the Powder River Basin fields in Wy to Colorado. The pipeline ran through my father-in-law’s ranch. Despite contrary advice from all of his neighbors, he signed an agreement with the pipline. It took them about two weeks to palce the pipeline across his property and they left every fence and trail intact until the last moment, replacing fences and covering trails as soon as the line was in place. Everything was restored and the disturbed soil reseeded immedaitely. One year later there was only a slight scar left to mark the line. He never lost anything and his ranch suffered no damage. Most of this opposition is based on hysteria. ++++++++++++++++++++++ This reflects my family's experience with utility easements in general. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken The pipeline cuts across the Riverby Land and Cattle Company in far NE Fannin County, here's a pic I took this evening in far NW Lamar County: As soon as the pipeline is buried the grass will grow back and nobody will know it's there except for the usual small "Don't dig here!" utility signs that will be planted every so often.
#44. To: purplerose (#41)
(Edited)
We are the militia, Grey Lmist. We don't need to be registered with some infantry to be recognized as one. It the same thing as saying we have the right to keep and bear arms. The "we" refers to the John Q. Public. And you don't need to register your firearms. If you do, then you deserve to have yours confiscated.
#45. To: christine, scrapper2 (#43)
#46. To: scrapper2 (#42)
#47. To: GreyLmist (#46)
(Edited)
they should be in favor of women on the frontlines with no male backup.
#48. To: GreyLmist (#39)
How about an all female unit?
#49. To: Cynicom (#48)
#50. To: randge (#49)
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#51. To: scrapper2 (#47)
Unfortunately, Sandra Day O'Connor mistakenly believes that sitting in the SC court room today and glaring at the SC Justices as the University of Texas affirmative action policy is debated constitutes "enough" front line battle as her AA selected SC self can handle.
AA for the female gender should include Selective Service sign up. "Equality" should not be a one way street to success - some heavy lifting and SACRIFICE are in order as well.
#52. To: Cynicom (#48)
All units fully integrated, gender equal, luck of the draw. No powder rooms in the jungle or the outback, no privacy, kill or be killed, "every person on their own".
#53. To: GreyLmist (#52)
Be reasonable, Cyni. No women attached to male Combat Arms Units.
#54. To: GreyLmist (#52)
Be reasonable,
#55. To: GreyLmist (#44)
(Edited)
"...but the Constitution does formally specify a more disciplined level of training, imo, as being necessary to effectively secure a free State. Am open to hearing other thoughts about it, though, from you and others."
#56. To: randge (#53)
#57. To: GreyLmist, scrapper2 (#45)
#58. To: Cynicom (#54)
Each Navy carrier that sails usually has a female compliment of at least ten percent, that is over 600 young girls. If one does the math, the military has, there is no way they could sail without the females.
#59. To: christine (#58)
i had NO idea the number was this large.
#60. To: purplerose (#55)
(Edited)
#61. To: Cynicom (#59)
Some admit to getting pregnant so they will be taken off ship and flown home.
#62. To: randge (#61)
#63. To: Lod, randge (#62)
It creates more dependent constituents.
#64. To: Cynicom (#63)
#65. To: noone222 (#0)
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#66. To: Lod (#56)
The only things that we're free of are peace, prosperity, and freedom itself.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#67. To: Esso, All (#66)
#68. To: GreyLmist (#60)
(Edited)
It should be considered a Treasonous Act of War to infilitrate them through subversions to undermine, weaken, and fragment State Defenses, imo. Some stand alone, ad hoc paramilitary groups might proclaim themselves Militias of their State or independent/anarchal Militias that aren't encumbered by law in their opinion, but protection of their State and citizen safety or Freedoms isn't necessarily always their agenda, as I think you know.
#69. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#67)
#70. To: purplerose (#68)
#71. To: Lod (#69)
#72. To: GreyLmist (#70)
I don't think the Constitution speaks of the Militia as just whatever someone or some group wants to call it on their own terms.
#73. To: purplerose, 4 (#72)
#74. To: Lod (#73)
(Edited)
An easement does not deny access to anyones' land; you know that.
#75. To: purplerose (#74)
#76. To: Lod (#75)
-Alex Kurtagic
#77. To: X-15 (#76)
Where is this in relation to the new mega-lake going in up there? Thanks much.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#78. To: Lod (#77)
North and East. It crosses the far NE corner of Fannin Co., goes over to Lamar Co., then turns south not very far into Lamar Co. Here's a good map about 1/3 of the way down:
-Alex Kurtagic
#79. To: X-15 (#78)
Thanks for the detail. With all the new production coming out of OK and everywhere up and down the line, I see the need to get the product to refineries on our coast.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#80. To: Lod (#79)
In addition: the stretch of land that's cleared for the pipeline makes a real good place to plant food-plots and put in stands for deer hunting after the pipeline crew has done their work and left. They've already plowed up the land, all you have to do is a little discing to plant your seeds and away you go!!
-Alex Kurtagic
#81. To: All, *Totalitarian Tiptoe* (#27)
Bumping this and other references in the thread pertinent to the Unconstitutional maneuvers to disarm Americans and the lesser known impact of disarming State Militias, too, which are comprised of the States' citizenry. Reminder: the National Guards are not the equivalency of Constitutional State Militias. They are a portion of volunteers from the State Militias that agree to work in a dual task force capacity with the Federal government. America's Secret Army: "if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45 [My note: between meaning 18-44], you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#82. To: All (#40)
Although it is verifiably correct that Militia units refused to cross the border into Canadian territory during the War of 1812 and that they were right to refuse, I was unable to locate info (for another thread) on three Militiamen having been executed for that. Am noting while re-addressing the matter that the New York and Vermont Militias reportedly refused the border crossing order as Unconstitutional for them to obey; because they weren't Regular Army troops but intended for national Defense only -- not international warfare. However, it is verifiable that Andrew Jackson ordered the executions of six Tennessee Militiamen farther south for Mutiny and Desertion because they thought their terms were for 3 months Constitutionally rather than 6 months of duty, which is a complicated issue and the time-extension arguably didn't even apply to them. They weren't the only ones executed by Jackson's orders but I thought that they should be given an honorable mention here, as well -- along with New York and Vermont -- because of their stand for Constitutionality. On the in-country duty issue of State/National Guard Militias, during the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson ordered 3 Militiamen to be executed for refusing to cross into Canadian territory. They were right to refuse
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#83. To: All (#82)
Should have mentioned there too that the Massachusetts and Connecticut Militias similarly refused a Presidential order that the Militias of the northern States march to the frontiers in the War of 1812 -- on the grounds that there was neither an invasion nor an insurrection there. Am noting while re-addressing the matter that the New York and Vermont Militias reportedly refused the border crossing order as Unconstitutional for them to obey; because they weren't Regular Army troops but intended for national Defense only -- not international warfare.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest