Insinuation Nation

A broad coalition of people in the West, and in Kiev, are taking the characteristics of Ukrainian nationalists (who came to power in a “Putsch”) and projecting them onto Russian-speaking groups in eastern Ukraine.

This projection is visible in the wake of an ugly incident, in which leaflets were passed out in the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, demanding that its Jewish population register with the authorities.

One sign this is a false operation, certainly orchestrated by Kiev or its backers, is that the so-called “authorities” in Donetsk are still, formally, representatives of the Ukrainian government in Kiev!

Despite the declarations of a few protesters, Donetsk is not yet an independent state, nor has it been annexed into Russia. Why would pro-Russian militants order people to register with their enemies?

There is another sign that this is a false operation, designed to smear pro-Russian militias.

Stephen Pollard wrote an article about the incident, trying to place it into the wider context of eastern European anti-Semitism. The article represents a very clever example of insinuation, tempered only by this statement, which rings false: “We do not know for certain who is behind the chilling leaflet…”

As a rule of thumb, whenever you hear the words “we do not know for certain,” well, there is something amiss. Most likely, the author does is pretending not to know or does not want to know. Meantime, the author remains busy, insinuating.

Pollard thinks that Putin is being disingenuous when voicing concerns about the rise of the far-right in the Ukraine.

How quickly Pollard forgets who forms the new crowd in Kiev: the Right Sector, filled with neo-Nazi hoodlums. Consider this, by S. Craine:

“During the war, the Ukrainian nationalists were Nazi collaborators. They collaborated in the Holocaust. In fact, the Ukrainians were the most enthusiastic Nazi collaborators in the Einsatzgruppe – the Nazi occupied western front, called the Pale Settlement… When Nazis invaded Ukraine, they recruited Petlyurists. Three days after the nazi invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalists murdered six thousand Jewish POWs inside Brygidky prison in Lvov.” Also, the Ukrainian auxiliary police was used in the round-up of Jews for the massacres in Babi Yar, Lutsk, and Zhytomyr.

While feudal Russia certainly had a history of anti-Semitism, it is important to note that Russian and pro-Russian groups were primarily responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany (even more so than the western allies).

Naturally, the Russians erected statues commemorating their victory. Many of these monuments were destroyed by the Ukrainian nationalists. But now this scratched record is to be played backwards. (It’s Opposite Day again).

Western journalists and other collaborators have torn a page from the playbook of Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

But now it’s trickier. Lies are not simply told; they are insinuated.

 

Sources

http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/471283/Anti-Semitism-is-still-prevalent-and-still-a-threat

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/27-03-2014/127186-ukraine_nationalist_movement_jews-0/

Random Comment

A Russian-speaking Ukrainian, in eastern Ukraine, was interviewed on CCTV.

He was scratching his head in bewilderment. He did not understand how protesters who occupied government buildings in Kiev could be called “heroes” when those who occupied government buildings in eastern Ukraine were, suddenly, “criminals and terrorists.”

Actually, he did understand. He was just posing the question to which he already had an answer.

A New “Kra Canal”

200-3

 

 

China to bypass Malacca Strait by Kra Isthmus Canal in Thailand

This is an interesting article, linked here:

http://chinadailymail.com/2014/03/16/china-to-bypass-malacca-strait-by-kra-isthmus-canal-in-thailand/

Internationalization

It is interesting to note that the major universities of Chengdu, China, receive a large amount of foreign students – particularly at Sichuan University’s School of Dentistry. There are other universities focusing more on business and languages that also receive a large inflow of students.

What is interesting are the countries of origin for the students. At Sichuan University, there are literally hundreds of students from India, both men and women. Most of them are here for five years and they learn Chinese rather quickly. The India – Chengdu connection is strong, with direct flights from Mumbai to Chengdu. Many of the classes are given in English for the first few years. There are also numerous students from Sudan. But I imagine there are no direct flights.

Chengdu is the fourth largest city in China, with about 14 million people, and it might be the most ethnically diverse. Not only have people poured in from surrounding provinces over the past decade, but the city is home to a large population of Tibetans and also Muslims from the western provinces.

Why S. 2195 is Unconstitutional

by John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD, teaches law at Zirve University in Gaziantep, Turkey.

Jingoistic Americans Get Ready to be Duped Again.  

Ted Cruz wants to be your next Constitution-shredding leader.

On 1 April 2014, Ted Cruz (R-TX), submitted a bill to Congress, S. 2195[1], designed to do one thing – prevent the U.S. State Department from issuing a visa to Hamid Aboutalebi, then nominated by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), to serve as the IRI ambassador to the UN in New York.[2]

What should be known to Americans who care about the rule of law, and the idea that promises – like that of Cruz, who swore an oath to uphold and support the Constitution[3] – mean something, is that the text of S. 2195 is patently unconstitutional.  And is unconstitutional for at least two, if not three reasons!  The text constitutes a Bill of Attainder, and if enacted, will be an ex post facto law.  If that were not enough, arguably, the bill conflicts with an existing treaty between the United States and the United Nations.

According to Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”  As Article I addresses the Legislative branch of government, the clause is a strict prohibition on Congress – and there are no exceptions.  Additionally, Article VI says that Treaties are Supreme Law.  Instead of sponsoring this bill, why didn’t Cruz just urge fellow members of the Senate to amend the treaty?

Ordinarily, I might grant a pass to certain members of Congress for their legislative gaffs – especially if they lacked a legal background.  But Cruz has no excuse.  Cruz was a law clerk (meaning research assistant, legal scholar and opinion writer) to and for the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995, and then for the United States Supreme Court (under then Chief Justice Rehnquist) in 1996.[4]  At Harvard law school, he was primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.  Reflecting back, in 2013, his professor, and advocate for torture, Alan Dershowitz, called Cruz, “off the charts, brilliant.”[5]

Unlike his fellow Harvard alum and editor of the Harvard Law Review, Barack “Barry” Obama who, we told, taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, Cruz put Constitutional principles in practice, working for Bush on the infamous Bush v. Gore – voter suppression case.  Later, Cruz was the top prosecutor and Constitutional law expert for the State of Texas, as its Solicitor General from 2003-2008.  So how is that now, Senator Cruz, would push an unconstitutional law?  Maybe he thinks that the sheeple just do not care?

Legal Analysis

What are the problems with the Cruz bill?  The language directs:

“the President of the United States to deny U.S. admission to any representative of the United Nations (U.N.) who: (1) has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States or its allies, and (2) may pose a threat to U.S. national security interests.”[6]

And by the way, the meaning of terrorist activity is that which is defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii).[7]

As it stands, this bill, if signed by Obama, would amend the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991.  That is to say, arguably there already is a Bill of Attainder on the books – but that is surely no excuse for Cruz … if he gave a damn about the Constitution and his oath to it.

Why is this language unconstitutional?

The Cruz bill is unconstitutional because:

(a) it imposes a punishment – purporting to deny issuance of a diplomatic or other visa to someone, though under U.S. treaty and law,[8] such a person, like Aboutalebi, is entitled to the visa; even though

(b) Aboutalebi has been not be convicted of, much less charged with, a crime.

That is, the law defines Aboutalebi as a criminal (a terrorist), and assesses a punishment (denial of a visa or diplomatic immunity), without: (1) the need for criminal charge; (2) submission of evidence – subject to scrutiny in a court hearing; and (3) finding of guilt by an independent jury.  Such is the definition of a Bill of Attainder.

It was the ubiquity of such Bills, issued by the British Parliament, against political enemies of the Crown,[9] that motivated the drafters of the Constitution to put that limitation on Congress in the first place.  After all, how can one defend themselves against a law that defines them as a criminal?  Writing in Federalist #84 (1788) Alex Hamilton called the Constitution a bulwark against tyranny specifically because Congress would be prevented from passing Bills of Attainder.[10]  I guess Cruz, and his allies, in Congress, do not believe that a government should refrain from acting in a tyrannical manner.

But as I expressed above, as it reads, the new Act is also an unconstitutional ex post facto law.  Let us presume that Cruz is correct, and Aboutalebi broke some U.S. law in 1979.  The only punishment that U.S. law could impose on him is that which existed at the time of the supposed act.  But with his bill, Cruz is seeking to add additional penalties against Aboutalebi – after the fact!  That is the very definition of an ex post facto law.[11]

What is the point of having a Constitution, and or requiring that Members of Congress swear and oath to it, if they feel comfortable submitting and passing bills that contravene it?

Lastly, there is the purported treaty, or at least a legally binding agreement, from 1947, between the United States and the UN[12] – which requires the visas to be issued.  Even if the Joint Resolution of Congress is a mere Act (i.e., is a statute), why wouldn’t Cruz, and the rest of the Congress, just seek to repeal that language?

And in all honesty, since 9/11, Bush and now Obama have had no qualms against bombing weddings to kill one suspect.[13]  They have ordered kidnappings and that people are shipped to black sites to be tortured.[14]  They have told the Supreme Court that they need no evidence wrong-doing, before they choose to order the execution of an American citizen.[15]  Why this bill, now?

It does not take a political scientist (though I am one) or a rocket scientist (but my father was that) to see that this is little more than political theater.  Cruz is trying to get his bona fides for a shot at the Republican nomination – despite the fact that he is clearly ineligible to be president, given that he was born in Canada.  Maybe his contempt for the Constitution is based in his hostility to the clause of Article II, section 1, that limits eligibility of the president to one who is a natural-born citizen?  Recall, even Arnold Schwarzeneggar acknowledged that there would have to be a Constitutional amendment to allow him to serve.[16]  Why is Cruz looking for short cuts over the rule of law?  Again, perhaps it has something to do with his wife, a vice-president at Goldman-Sachs – we know of their overt criminality.  And Mrs. Cruz is not scoring any congeniality points with those of us who were not on the receiving end of the bankster bailouts[17] and coming bail-ins.[18]

Maybe Cruz, and his friends inside Congress (be they Republi-Crats or Demo-Publicans) and on Wall Street, are only looking to test the waters of unconstitutional tyranny once again.  Bush and Cheney admitted they ordered torture.[19]  Bush and Cheney lied to the American public and pushed the nation into an unconstitutional, and illegal war of aggression.[20]  Obama has continued the warrantless spying program,[21] and torture,[22] and extra-judicial killings.

If Americans will continue to show a preference for war-mongering or rants about Iran, instead of fealty to the Constitution, by the time 2016 rolls around, Team Cruz will happily offer up another dose of Constitution-free government.

 

John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD, teaches law at Zirve University in Gaziantep, Turkey.  He may be reached at biko97jcj@hotmail.com

 


[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2195/text; the identical text of the House version, HR 4357, was sponsored by Doug Lamborn (R-CO, 5th District).  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4357/text

[3] Such oath is required for Members of Congress under Article IV, clause 3.  And also supported by legislation.  See reference at:  http://www.ilonanickels.com/CC_oathofoffice.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Early_life.   Ironically, Rehnquist wrote about the Constitutional prohibition on Bills of Attainder, also called Bills of Pains and Penalties, in his 1987 book, The Surpeme Court:  How it was, how it is (New York:  Morrow & Co).

[5] Johnson, Charles C.  2013.  “Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students”.  Daily Caller, May 9.  Retrieved August 17, 2013.

[8] See Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, Article IV. Communications and Transit, Sections 11 and 13(a).  They read in part:  “The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations …”  And “Laws and regulations in force in the United States regarding the entry of aliens shall not be applied in such manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11.  When visas are required for persons referred to in [Section 11], they shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible.  See text at:  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp

[11]  The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the ex post facto Clause to bay any legislation: … increasing the punishment for a crime after the commission, or depriving the accused of any legal defense available at the time the crime was committed.  Collins v. Young, 497 U.S. 37, 42 (1990).

 

John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD, teaches law at Zirve University in Gaziantep, Turkey.  He may be reached at biko97jcj@hotmail.com

He may be reached at biko97jcj@hotmail.com

Remember South Sudan?

“Opposite Day” has been extended for another day. Remember South Sudan?

Kosovo is not the most recent major case in which Washington applauded the secession of a region from a larger country.

In 2011, the United States had waged a full-front effort – economic, political, diplomatic and through NGOs – to support South Sudan’s secessionist movement. Let’s have a referendum!

Whether or not South Sudan should or should have not seceded is not the point here. The point here is that, today, the potential secession of eastern Ukraine is being depicted as an unthinkable and intolerable act (perhaps akin to incest or cannibalism).

At the time, Sudan was rather strident about its sovereignty. And it was doing an enormous amount of business with China. Those might have been factors in Washington’s rush to support the 2011 referendum in South Sudan, which voted to become independent of Sudan.

Immediately after the referendum, bells of victory rang from Washington to London to Paris.

Leaders across the West stumbled over one another in their headlong rush to face television cameras, welcoming the “world’s newest state” to the “international community.”

It was “historic.”

Crimea, Opposite to Kosovo

It is interesting, even hilarious, that Washington’s position on the Ukraine is exactly 180 opposite to its position on Kosovo in 2008. Perhaps someone should declare an official holiday: “Opposite Day.”

Washington’s stance on the Ukraine is that its territorial sovereignty and national integrity should never be violated – even though the current government in Kiev came to power illegally, and even though this country of “the Ukraine” was actually divided, and not united, for a majority of its history.

It was not too long ago that Kosovo was seeking to declare its independence and exert it self-determination, breaking away from the former Yugoslavia. But Washington liked that breakaway, as it plucked a pawn from the chess set.

So, there was hand wringing involved.

But those hands were separated in order to applaud Kosovo’s formal secession with a local constitution: “This constitution enshrines the aspiration and determination of Kosovo’s citizens…” Blah, blah, blah…

Back then, Washington’s policymakers, talking heads, and armchair experts dusted off Wilson’s 14 points, and waxed eloquently about autonomy, independence and self-determination. Lots of inspiring speeches.

Today, those words are not heard coming out of the mouths of western leaders…

But the similarities between Kosovo and Crimea are strong. Each case represents a small region of a country attempting to break away from the larger country to which it formally belonged. But Kosovo was a Pawn; Crimea is a Castle, anchoring one end of the game.

Still, the underlying logic of breakaway is identical. In fact, when the Republic of Crimea proclaimed its independence from Ukraine in March of 2014, Crimea cited Kosovo as a precedent in its Declaration of Independence!

Here is the first paragraph of that declaration:

Declaration of Independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol:

“We, the members of the parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council, with regard to the charter of the United Nations and a whole range of other international documents and taking into consideration the confirmation of the status of Kosovo by the United Nations International Court of Justice on July, 22, 2010, which says that unilateral declaration of independence by a part of the country does not violate any international norms, make this decision jointly…”

It seems that the leadership of the US and its European allies have a much higher tolerance for hypocrisy than, well, normal people.

In fact, they are determined to lie all the way to the finish line.

They are propelled forward, into the future, by mendacity.

The Quiet Earth

MV5BMTk2MjM1NjgzNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTc5ODIzMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_

The Quiet Earth (1985) is often overlooked by people reaching back a few decades for a dose of science fiction.

The IMDB link is provided below, beneath the Soku.com link to watch the movie. The poster there is in French, but this is a movie from New Zealand. I imagine it is a good location for capturing a “last man left alive” feeling.

I paste here the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s description of the movie (with no spoilers):

“John Hobson, a geneticist involved in a project concerned with manipulating DNA, awakes in his hotel room in Thames, New Zealand after a nightmare of falling from a great height. His wristwatch has stopped at 6:12. Upon getting up he finds the electricity off. It is quiet outside, with nobody in sight. Hobson checks the time in his car, finding the vehicle’s clock is also frozen at 6:12.

The town’s shops are locked and unattended, with no sign of people. Investigating a car sitting at an intersection, Hobson sees that the driver’s seatbelt is still fastened. Telephones are dead and there is only static on the radio. All humans and animals have disappeared. No watch or clock shows anything other than 6:12.

Hobson concludes that some force has altered the clocks to show the same time and then stopped them, suggesting an intelligence behind the event, which Hobson dubs ‘the Effect’.”

The movie also contained curious references to our section of the universe having had its fabric woven, its architecture constructed. This suggests that we are living in a construction within a larger construction – the hack.

There are also allusions to a project we now know as HAARP. And Saturn rises, that beacon into the higher dimensions…

In this movie, the Sun has, well, problems. It’s vibration changes unpredictably and it even blinks. I saw this movie a few days ago and, oddly, was reminded of a vivid dream I had a week ago – a first – in which the Sun instantly turned black, changing the day into the darkest night.

Normally, I would have interpreted such a dream as a bad omen, with unfortunate personal consequences, but I imagine a Sun turning off would affect everyone equally. And so I went about my day undisturbed.

In any case, this movie is thought provoking and ranks up there with On the Beach, Soylent Green, Logan’s Run and other films.

http://www.soku.com/search_video/q_the%20quiet%20earth?f=1&kb=0412000000000__the%20quiet%20earth

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/

The Law is Clear

download

As widely reported, the United States will deny a visa to Iran’s new Ambassador to the United Nations, Hamid Aboutalebi (the former Iranian Ambassador to Australia, Belgium, Italy and the European Union).

Washington claims that Aboutalebi participated in the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, while Aboutalebi, who says he was outside of the capital during that time, clarified that he later served as translator and negotiator.

As with all controversies of this sort (such as with the arrest of the Indian diplomat a few months back), it is always useful to return to the exact wording of the laws and conventions in question. Now, like then, Washington is clearly in the wrong.

This article briefly explains why, referring to the 1947 Agreement, linked below.

Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, 1947.

The issue is not a simple one. There is a kind of joint sovereignty over the United Nations district in New York.

United Nations regulations prevail as the default setting so to speak, but US federal, state and local laws both apply. When there is a conflict, the United Nations system wins out until the US position is accepted (if accepted) by a three-person commission.

Section 7 of the 1947 Agreement is basic:

(a)     The headquarters district shall be under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in this agreement.

The next portion of the text shows that US laws can apply within the UN district. Unfortunately for Washington, however, the naming of country Ambassadors (as opposed to staff), within the UN’s New York district, is beyond the reach of American law, as will be shown later…

(b)      Except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district.

Section 8 clarifies that, unless explicitly stated, US law is subordinate to UN regulations.

The United Nations shall have the power to make regulations, operative within the headquarters district, for the purpose of establishing therein conditions in all respects necessary for the full execution of its functions. No federal, state or local law or regulation of the United States which is inconsistent with a regulation of the United Nations authorized by this section shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be applicable within the headquarters district. Any dispute, between the United Nations and the United States, as to whether a regulation of the United Nations is authorized by this section or as to whether a federal, state or local law or regulation is inconsistent with any regulation of the United Nations authorized by this section, shall be promptly settled as provided in Section 21. Pending such settlement, the regulation of the United Nations shall apply, and the federal, state or local law or regulation shall be inapplicable in the headquarters district to the extent that the United Nations claims it to be inconsistent with the regulation of the United Nations…

Section 21 is clear on how disputes are to be resolved:

(a) Any dispute between the United Nations and the United States concerning the interpretation or application of this agreement or of any supplemental agreement, which is not settled by negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement, shall be referred for final decision to a tribunal of three arbitrators, one to be named by the SecretaryGeneral, one to be named by the Secretary of State of the United States, and the third to be chosen by the two, or, if they should fail to agree upon a third, then by the President of the International Court of Justice.

(b) The Secretary-General or the United States may ask the General Assembly to request of the International Court of Justice an advisory opinion on any legal question arising in the course of such proceedings. Pending the receipt of the opinion of the Court, an interim decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be observed by both parties. Thereafter, the arbitral tribunal shall render a final decision, having regard to the opinion of the Court.

And now, to the heart of the matter: When a country with UN representation designates a “principal resident representative” to the United Nations, that person fulfills that role automatically.

Article 5 defines the Resident Representatives to the United Nations in Section 15 as follows:

(1)    Every person designated by a Member as the principal resident representative to the United Nations of such Member or as a resident representative with the rank of ambassador or minister plenipotentiary.

So, Ambassadors or Ministers Plenipotentiary can be appointed by a country in a non-negotiable manner, under the United Nations regulations.

Lower down, the US does have a right to pursue objections over staff (and even over the principal representatives of a country’s specialized agencies):

(2) Such resident members of their staffs as may be agreed upon between the Secretary-General, the Government of the United States and the Government of the Member concerned…

It seems that the US cannot raise a barrier to Ambassador Hamid Aboutalebi without taking its case to a UN tribunal.

Under the 1947 Agreement, the US must facilitate his access to the UN’s New York district, and to other areas as he pursues his official duties, but Washington can indeed restrict his movement beyond those of his job (no Disneyland).

As Article 5 continues, it explains what happens where there is no diplomatic recognition by the US.

(4) In the case of Members whose governments are not recognized by the United States, such privileges and immunities need be extended to such representatives, or persons on the staffs of such representatives, only within the headquarters district, at their residences and offices outside the district, in transit between the district and such residences and offices, and in transit on official business to or from foreign countries.

This entire case demonstrates the folly of locating the United Nations in what is perhaps the most non-neutral country in the world. What were they thinking? Granted, the restaurants, shopping and nightclubs are top drawer.

Also, Washington should have pursued the matter decades ago if it really had a case against Hamid Aboutalebi. Are there any indictments? No.

Instead, Washington waited, to make a scandal, until this four-time Ambassador was appointed to the United Nations.

Actually, it was not Washington per se that objected; instead, the last-minute complaints were raised by AIPAC, America’s loudest and most hysterical ethnic mafia, which happens to have a choke hold on Congress.

All who hope to politic there must first grovel on that altar.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp

Original Meaning

There are Beltway insiders who think that the addition of five extra words, “when serving in the Militia,” will allow the US federal government, presumably, to control or even confiscate the weapons of law-abiding citizens (who are now imagined to defend themselves and their families, during emergencies, with cell phones with dead batteries). Just call 911.

Some people are rightly concerned about school shootings, but these tragedies were rare a few decades ago (when guns were also common) before the mass abuse of anti-depressants.

Here is the supposed “new and improved” Second Amendment, with the proposed 5 words underlined:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

But these advocates appear to be ignorant of what a “militia” really is – in the United States (and just in the American context).

Historically, the term “militia” was used to describe all able-bodied men who were not members of the Army or Navy.

The militia could be either organized, unorganized, or in reserve, but in its broadest meaning, “militia” simply refers to all able-bodied male citizens (and now female citizens, with the legal recognition of gender equality).

The idea of a militia is that it is a force that is in repose, to be used as a last resort, as a safeguard for the Constitution and more specifically the 10 Bill of Rights, which is a document that should be considered non-negotiable.

With origins in resistance against the British Empire, the militia was conceived of as a force to be of potential use against the federal government (which was created by the states, which in turn were created by the people, and not the other way around, that is, from the top down).

People do not serve in militia the way that they do in a regular army, marching about on fields; instead, they are militia.

The reason the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, and the reason “militia” was synonymous with “able-bodied male citizen,” and now with voting-age male and female citizens, is because that right – along with nine others – are to be defended by individuals, by force, without permission from anyone, not even the US Supreme Court. That is the essence of these rights being “inalienable.”

And for the United States, that is the basis of popular sovereignty.