Enforcement and Insurrection
The controversy surrounding the various "Republic of Texas" groups and the duties of the Constitutional Militia with respect to them and others like them has raised some important issues that need to be discussed and understood.
It has been suggested that the Constitutional Militia might actually become obliged to put down such groups as insurrections. That is a very real possibility, and one that discussions of this kind will hopefully avoid.
One of the problems in this situation is that too many people in the patriot movement don't seem able to recognize "false prophets" who raise the banner of liberty but who are either deluded fools or frauds. Such persons have rights, and deserve our protection from abuses of those rights, but they do not deserve our admiration or support. They must not be allowed to distract us from the important work of legal reform, or to divert activists into foolish pursuits.
The various groups who have been flying the banner of "Republic of Texas" are such false prophets. They are worth studying for what they can teach us about recognizing the false prophets that will emerge in the future.
How to recognize false prophets
The characteristics of con men are well-known to law enforcement people who attempt to investigate and prosecute them, and the characteristics of the deluded are well-known to psychotherapists, but when these characteristics are combined, they can represent a special threat to people who are unprepared for them.
Interestingly, those same people may be well-prepared to see through the methods used by frauds and the deluded when those same methods are used by the powerful, even while they fail to do so when used by people who resemble themselves as powerless. Having power makes a difference in the ways people are perceived, even when their characters and methods are the same.
Consider the following attributes:
(2) Promises of quick, easy, magical ways to become prosperous.
(3) Projection of themselves as romantic figures - noble freedom fighters.
(4) Claims to authority they don't have.
(5) Inability to work together with others to carry out rational plans of action.
(6) Clinical symptoms of paranoid personality disorder, including delusions of persecution, as evidenced by endless claims of victimhood, and grandeur, as evidenced by trappings such as exalted titles, pretentious dress, or status possessions.
(7) Focus on one key idea or discovery that is used to build an elaborate structure of justification for their claims, but which does not stand up under objective examination.
(8) A tendency to engage in petty lawbreaking as an expression of their conviction they have a higher calling which makes it okay for them to do so, combined with hypocrisy about such lawbreaking when they get caught.
And if they do, do you really want to follow or support those people?
The "Republic of Texas"
It is worthwhile to go back to the roots of the "Republic of Texas" groups. And we should always put "Republic of Texas" in quotes when referring to them because they are NOT the Republic of Texas. That was a political entity that existed from 1836 to 1845, and ceased to exist after that year. Never mind that some people found flaws in the admission process for the State of Texas. Flaws there may have been, but flaws are not necessarily fatal when there was a general public consensus as to what happened. The people of Texas supported admission as a state in 1845, even hispanic Texans, and if there were flaws, those flaws were submerged by subsequent elections and later adoption by a wide margin of the State Constitution of 1976.
They got involved in issuing private debt instruments backed by "liens" on government officials. Now, that might be okay if it were done to mock the debt instruments issued by "approved" financial institutions, or to punish or deter official abuses, but they did it for personal gain, blithely ignoring the fact that the debt instruments of such institutions are at least backed, for the most part, by liens on things like real property or vehicles that have some established market value, and not on individuals who may or may not have anything. The moment they crossed the line and sought personal gain, they lost all merit in their arguments. Never mind that the same thing is done every day on Wall Street. We cannot fight wrong by committing it.
A Reality Check
There is no serious chance that the people of Texas will ever support secession from the Union. The people are wise enough to realize that, although positions in government may have become filled by criminals, the constitutional machinery of government remains in place, waiting for the people to fill those positions with the honest and competent, and to bring them into compliance with the U.S. and state constitutions.
This is what I mean by promises of magical solutions. False prophets will try to sell frustrated activists on the possibility that there is some easier solution than winning support for reform from the majority of the American people, one person at a time. There is no such solution. We have to do it the hard way, house by house, neighborhood by neighborhood, county by county, state by state. If we don't get the people's support, we will not succeed, and all the legalistic tricks in the world won't make any difference.
Everyone wants to wave a magic wand and have everything miraculously change for the better. Forget it. You have to get out and talk to your neighbors. Learn from the Seventh Day Adventists. Knock on doors and pass out literature. Set up neighborhood meetings. That will be difficult in an age in which most people don't know the names of their neighbors. Before we can achieve reform we have to rebuild atomized communities. But it can be done. People just have to accept that they will have to devote a few hours every day to it. Day after day. Month after month. Year after year. Never knowing whether it will make a difference until some day it does.
Determining what is an insurrection
So when is an effort a just revolution and when is it an insurrection, an appropriate object of suppression by the Militia?
Honest men can disagree about this. Shays's Rebellion was opposed by most of the people in power at the time in Massachusetts, including John Adams, one of the Founders. It was supported by Thomas Jefferson, and this disagreement was a major factor in the alienation that prevailed between those two men until they later reconciled and began their famous correspondence.
The Whisky Rebellion was put down by a militia led by George Washington. He considered it an insurrection. Others thought it a just cause.
The three constitutional missions of the Militia when called up for national service are to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". To this might be added disaster response, but that is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
Sheriff Steve Bailey of Jeff Davis County appears to have a lawful arrest warrant for Rick McLaren: making a charge under a constitutional statute, issued by a court having jurisdiction, backed by a properly executed affidavit and complaint. The duty of the militia under these circumstances is to offer its services to the Sheriff to execute the warrant. Having only two deputies, this might be an offer the Sheriff will want to accept, especially if the Militia has some people who would resolve the situation peacefully, and get McLaren to turn himself in.
If McLaren and his followers should choose to resist this warrant with violence, then it would be the duty of the militia to assist the Sheriff in suppressing the insurrection that such resistance would represent.
On the other hand, should the Sheriff or any other person try to execute the warrant through excessive force, it would be the duty of the Militia to put down such persons. Then they would be the insurrectionists. They might even call upon the accused to help them do that. But after doing so, they would then have the duty to execute the original warrant, applying such force as might be necessary to do so.
On the other hand, if the warrant charged the accused under a statute that is unconstitutional, such as most gun laws are, or was issued by a court not having jurisdiction, as most federal courts don't have in most criminal cases, then the warrant would be null and void, the accused would be within its rights to resist, and the Militia would have the duty to defend them. But not to defend their political positions. And anyone in the situation who exercises excessive or unnecessary force, on either side of a badge, is in violation of constitutional state laws, and subject to enforcement of those laws by the Militia.
Make no mistake about it. In a constitutional republic every person has the duty to make a constitutional review of any official act with which they may become involved. They may only have a fraction of a second to do that. But do it they must. Never mind that it might take nine Supreme Court justices months to come to a decision in the case. The principles of constitutional republican government make no concessions to human intellectual limitations. You have to make the determination, and act on it, and you better get it right. A great many people's lives may depend on it.
Is it any wonder that most law enforcement agents, who are not, in general, our best and brightest, defer to superiors or judges on issues of whether an official act is constitutional? Too bad. That decision cannot be delegated. It is not that it is wrong to do so. It is physically impossible to do so. And those who think they can are just deluding themselves and others. The only way anyone can handle it is to consider as many possibilities as they can, in advance of events. We all need to become experts in constitutional law. There is literally no alternative.
Now, what does the Militia need to do if the FBI HRT gets involved? Let us be clear about this. Any person may investigate crimes and make arrests. That includes the Militia, and it includes federal agents. But only for crimes under constitutional statutes. The authority to do so does not come from a badge, or an ID that says "agent". It comes from the law and from a judge who issues a warrant. And that warrant can be issued to anyone to execute it.
All persons have a law enforcement rank. Really, a militia rank. By default, that rank is "private". That is why people are called "private citizens". It doesn't mean "reclusive". Some persons get a higher rank. Sheriffs. Constables. The Governor. City policemen. But City policemen must be deputy sheriffs of the county. Any person, and it doesn't have to be a citizen, has the same authority to enforce felony and more serious misdemeanor statutes. Any person.
There are very few persons who are federal employees who have a law enforcement rank higher than private citizen. U.S. marshals do, but FBI and ATF agents do not. They are not "officers". That is why they are called "agents". They have the same law enforcement authority as any citizen. No more, and no less. The authority to enforce laws comes from the laws and the situation, not from the agency.
Now, government employees may have special authority to "enforce" civil statutes that ordinary citizens don't. But there are limits on such enforcement. The key component of that is the "force" in "enforcement". A tax collector can administer a tax law, but not use force to collect taxes, or seize untaxed property. That can only be done at the point where a criminal law is violated, and at that point any person can enforce such criminal law. But not using excessive force. Defiance of authority is not an excuse to suppress the defying one. The law can and must be patient. Like a physician, it must strive to do no harm that is not absolutely necessary.
And the question of how much of what kind of force is necessary can be a fine judgement call, on which honest persons can disagree. Again, the only way anyone can make it is to mentally rehearse every conceivable situation, so he will be ready to make a decision quickly when the time comes.
--Jon