Since the end of WW II, every time we used our military against another nation, this nation has acted outside the confines of the Constitution.  The Constitution is the Social Contract which formed this nation, and under which this nation continues to exist.  This means the Constitution is the supreme law of our land.  This also means that the government has violated the Social Contract every time it used military power since WW II – and the people have done nothing about it.  If one side of a contract continuously breaks their terms of the agreement and the second Party doesn’t object and seek restitution, eventually, it is assumed that the second Party agrees to the violation.  At that point, the Party that has been violating the contract either assumes those violations as rightfully theirs, or the contract is considered null and void all together.  This happens with republics, as well.  If we allow our government to continuously violate the Constitution, sooner or later, it will either assume those violations are part of its authority or, more likely, that the Constitution no longer applies to it or its actions. When that happens, we will have the tyranny our founders warned us about, and it will have come from exactly the place our founders told us it would: from within our own borders – from us.

The Constitution grants the authority to declare war and to raise an Army to Congress and only to Congress:

Article I, Section 8

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 This means that the War Powers Act is unnecessary and unconstitutional.  If it is deemed that changes in modern military technologies make it necessary that the President, as commander in chief, be able to respond to an attack faster than Congress can declare war and authorize that response, then the Constitution needs to be and should be amended.  But Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution via legislation.  Nor does it have the authority to cede its powers to the Presidency.  Likewise, there is no inherent authority in the Presidency – as commander in chief – to commit a military action against another nation without Congressional action.  The Constitution is very clear on this matter: the military is under the direct control of the Congress.  And even though the President is the commander in chief, he has no authority to commit the military to action unless and until the Congress declares war.  And Congress must declare war to grant such action as it has no other Constitutional means to authorize military action.  Anything and everything outside of this process is a clear violation of the Constitution and, thus, of the Social Contract, Natural Rights of every citizen and, ultimately, Natural Law.  And every attempt to usurp Congressional power for the Presidency is an open act of tyranny.

Yes, this applies to UN sanctioned actions, as well.  There is nothing in the Constitution giving the President or Congress authority to cede this nation’s sovereignty via treaty.  Any such treaty would be unconstitutional, thus, it is null and void – even if it was ratified.  Therefore, the UN has no authority to direct this nation to engage in military actions without Congress actually voting to declare war first.  Once again, any attempt to supersede the Constitution through treaty represents a violation of the Constitution and an open act of tyranny.

This is why it is vital that every citizen of a free and self-governing republic know and understand the principles of Natural Law: the foundation upon which liberty is built.

Trampling Free will, Freedom to Contract and Freedom of Conscience (Freedom of Religion)

Under the NATURAL LAW tab at the head of this page, in Free Will: the First Principle of Natural Law, I explained that we all have a right to our free will.  No one else can lay claim to it without violating our ownership of our will.  It is through this undeniable individual ownership of our will that all other Natural Rights follow, and Universal Morality is established.  Essentially, morality is a function of whether or not we violate another person’s free will.  When we do so, we violate Natural Law.  And when we force our will on another, it is tyranny.  That is what this next story represents: government tyranny.

Court Says Christian Couple’s Refusal to Photograph Same-Sex Ceremony Was Illegal — Why ‘You Will Be Made to Care’

It is a state court decision that could have national reach. In the words of Red State’s Erik Erickson, “You will be made to care.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Christian wedding photographer violated the state’s human rights law by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

Natural vs. Civil Rights  In examining this story, we must start by understanding that ‘human rights’ is merely another term for ‘civil rights.’  The term ‘human rights’ is intended to be an equivalent term to Natural Rights, but the two terms are not equivalent.  Natural Rights rests on the existence of a Creator whereas human rights rest solely on the reason of man.  Thus, though some may try to elevate it beyond the position, human rights are merely civil rights as they exist only as an act of legislation.  But Natural Rights exist independently and in spite of man’s law.  So we need to understand that human rights are always subordinate to Natural Rights.

The Natural Right to Contract  The next thing we need to understand is that all business transactions are essentially the result of people exercising their Natural Right to contract.  Civil/human rights cannot alter this Natural Right: they can only subvert and trample it.  The Constitution rests on the same Natural Right.  The Constitution is the result of a social contract between every citizen in this nation.  If they seek to claim the protections established by the Constitution, they must also agree to live according to its restrictions.  And if they reject those restrictions, they cannot claim its protections; rather, society has a right to direct the full force of those protections against those who reject the terms of the Constitution.  In the same manner, wherever they would conflict with the protections of the Constitution, States cannot claim their own civil/human rights.  To do so is a violation of the terms of the Social Contract that have been set above the authority of the States.

Now, let’s look at this story.  First, the State of New Mexico has declared that its ‘human rights’ are superior to the protections of the U.S. Constitution.  This is a violation of the Social Contract, thus it constitutes an attack on every American who still claims those protections – including the citizens of New Mexico.  Second, there is no such thing as a Natural Right to not be discriminated against.  Any attempt to prohibit discrimination requires that the government force its will on others.  This is a clear violation of Natural Rights because it tramples the free will of the individual.  Though we may find it disagreeable, so long as it does not physically or materially harm someone, we have a right to be bigots, or to discriminate.  We also have a Natural Right to do business according to our biases.  We do not have an individual right to force each other to do business with us, and we are not harmed because someone refuses to do so.  We can do business with others or do without, but the absence of an action does not cause harm: personal or otherwise.  Therefore, the State of New Mexico is not only violating the Constitution by forcing someone to do business against their will, it is violating Natural Law and this – by definition – is tyranny.

The same applies to forcing the State’s will over an individual’s objections of conscience.  So long as our beliefs do not cause positive harm, any attempt to force us to do something against our conscience is a violation of our free will.  Once again, the State of New Mexico is violating the Constitution and committing an act of tyranny.

Hence, this story is not about ‘gay rights.’  That is a false argument.  This story is about a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution and an overt act of tyranny by the State of New Mexico – period!  And any attempt to make this into anything other than a violation of the Constitution and act of tyranny is an attempt to deceive — a further violation of Natural Law.