Additional Titles







Congress – Are they stupid or Conspiring to enslave us all











By Michael LeMieux
February 8, 2011

How many times, since September 11, 2001, have we heard that we are not at war with the Muslim religion but only with that a faction of Muslim extremists? This article is not about Muslims, Islam, fanatical religious extremists, but about the war that has begun to be waged here in America for the very soul of our nation. We are at war to salvage the very existence of individual liberty.

The Declaration of Independence declares without ambiguity that rights are granted by the creator unto the individual not the state: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Self-evident truth that upon the creation of life the individual is endowed with unalienable Rights!

Upon the creation of our national government the Constitution espoused one of the primary reasons for its creation: “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution…” Notice they did not say to the nation, or to the community, or to the village, but to “ourselves and our posterity,” further emphasizing that one of the primary purposes of the central government was to protect (secure) the liberty of the people.

During the constitutional debates there was much discussion as to how we ensure that the central government does not step beyond its bounds. Some argued that the framework provided would prove to chain the government down. Others argued that governments have always expanded and if protections were not laid out they would be lost. In 1789 a compromise was made and 12 amendments were proposed to the states for inclusion in the Constitution of which 10 were adopted and ratified in 1791 which became known as the Bill of Rights.

The federal government was designed to be a limited government. A great deal of time was spent during the constitutional conventions arguing over what powers the central government would have, and by so doing limit that power. Wanting a nation that was run by the rule of law and not the whims of man -- they invested Congress with the power to legislate. Article 1, Section 8, enumerates the ONLY areas where the central government can lawfully act.

In Federalist No. 45 James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” stated: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” To strengthen this point and to ensure it was remembered the states ratified, as part of the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This was to be an integral part of the balance of power to ensure that America does not once again fall under an oppressive central government. Alexander Hamilton also argued this point of view concerning not including a bill of rights. He stated that adding the Bill of Rights: “would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is not power to do?”

Alexander was arguing that it was unnecessary to list things that prohibited the federal government from doing when the government did not have the power to do them in the first place. Time has proven that the fears expressed by those that demanded a Bill of Rights were correct.

A clear example of government expansion into areas for which they have no jurisdiction is in the regulation of firearms. There is absolutely no power granted within the Constitution for the federal government to regulate firearms or for any particular industry for that matter. When the first firearms acts were adopted in Congress they were designed as a revenue raising scheme, a tax, that was all.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was codified under Title 15, Commerce and Trade, and promulgated the rules for the manufacture of firearms within interstate or foreign commerce and to establish licensing for dealers. Even at this time an individual not operating in commerce was unaffected by these new rules.


From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade.” However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.

The finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.” Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15? In fact, even though there is much overlap between Title 15 and Title 18, Title 15 was never repealed.

This was done to provide better control of “interstate” traffic in firearms. However, the stated purpose within the act is as follows:

Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance


“Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence…”

To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting state and local law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and void. That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from kicking in your door and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it just makes them wrong with a gun.

To further heighten the creep of government power, which Hamilton was so sure would not happen, chapter 44 of Title 18, of which our federal firearms laws are now a part, states the following:

18 USC §921(2)
“The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).” [Bold emphasis added]

Today we have the federal government threatening states that have enacted laws concerning intrastate (within the state) manufacture and sale of firearms – these are firearms not involved in interstate commerce. The Title 18 language above specifically states that the federal government knows it does not have authority when an item is not IN interstate commerce but it is doing so anyway.

Another example is the manufacture of items for personal use. The federal government has deemed that an individual who makes a silencer for a firearm, even when it is for personal use and is not in commerce at all, is still guilty of a federal offense when this clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the state.

All of this controversy over a single amendment to the Constitution (2nd Amendment) that Madison argued was needed to keep the federal government from infringing on our rights and Hamilton argued was unnecessary because the federal government was not granted the power in the first place and therefore could not act. On this account they were both right and they were both wrong. The federal government has infringed on all the rights enumerated (Bill of Rights) and they have enacted a multitude of laws into areas to which they have no jurisdiction.

The war we are currently fighting as a nation is correctly put – that we are not at war with the Muslim religion but with the extremists who would work evil against us.

Likewise, we are not at war with our constitutional government – we are at war:

with those who would work evil against us.
with those who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and fail to honor that oath.
with those that have infiltrated our government with the goal of undermining the individual freedoms and liberty espoused within the Constitution.
with those that openly defy the property rights of Americans and push for wealth redistribution.
with those who infringe the rights of individual Americans for some collective good.
with those who enforce laws where no injury or damaged party is involved and are made criminal for no other reason than because the government said so.
with those who deny justice to the American people to fulfill personal agendas.
with anyone enforcing an unconstitutional law.
with those that would use their positions immunity from prosecution to deny the rights of others.
with any judiciary that would deny the Constitution within its walls.

It is often quoted of Benjamin Franklin that “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” Not to undermine legitimate areas of government but to ensure the legitimacy of government.

When we have members of Congress openly admit that they do not determine if a law is constitutional before passing it, or scoff and scorn at anyone who would question the constitutional legitimacy of a proposed law, then they have set themselves apart from legitimate government and are acting as an enemy of the Constitution. Any Supreme Court judge that knowingly rules for agenda or politics over Constitution is an enemy of the Constitution. Any federal agent or employee who knowingly enforces laws beyond those enumerated within the Constitution is an enemy of the Constitution. Any police officer enforcing or assisting federal agents in unconstitutional laws is an enemy of the Constitution.

Quite simply we are at war with any person, department, or government entity, at any level, that operates outside the enumerated powers granted to them or who infringes on the rights of American citizens. If we continue to allow the erosion of liberty in America to continue we will awaken one morning to find that the American dream was nothing more than that – a dream!

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Perhaps we should hold our public officials to the same accountability they hold us. If we break the law they put us in jail or execute us. Perhaps if they were held to the same accountability for their oaths of office we would have a lot less infringement on the rights of the rest of us.

In the words of Thomas Paine concerning tyranny: "No country can be called free which is governed by an absolute power; and it matters not whether it be an absolute royal power or an absolute legislative power, as the consequences will be the same to the people."

� 2011 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website:








To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting state and local law enforcement?