The “Protection Against Invasion” Clause, Continuing Treason ~ VIDEO

Opinion
Read our complete article series on Treason here.

Noose Gallows Hangman Treason iStock-Sergei-Q 1282683829
The “Protection Against Invasion” Clause, Continuing Treason iStock-Sergei-Q

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Continued from our last article on Treason, let us look at this more closely.

Repeal Of The Bill Of Rights

Congress cannot modify or abrogate the Bill of Rights through Article 5 of the Constitution, even theoretically. The reason is this: The Bill of Rights is a codification of Natural Law Rights. These Rights precede the creation of Government.

Natural law Rights, particularly our sacred right to keep and bear arms, exist intrinsically in man, bestowed by the grace of the Divine Creator. They aren’t bestowed on man by the grace of Government.

The Article 5 amendment process would also require repealing Article 4 of the Constitution.

Revision Of Article 4 Of The Constitution

Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth in critical part that;

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

The “Guarantee” Clause

The first clause, the “GUARANTEE” CLAUSE, isn’t a suggestion or wish, or whim. It is a mandate, guaranteeing REPUBLICANISM.

Even if it were theoretically possible to erase Republicanism through the Article 5 amendment process, most States would never agree to this.

But, AUTHORITARIANISM in the Federal Government cannot logically coexist with REPUBLICANISM in the States. These two forms of Government are logically, not simply empirically, incompatible.

The Government would either have to reject AUTHORITARIANISM or convince the States to agree to AUTHORITARIANISM as the new mode of Government in the Nation.

The “Protection Against Invasion” Clause

The Federal Government isn’t protecting the States from invasion. That is a fact. The Harris-Biden Administration is actively inviting the invasion of the Nation through its “OPEN BORDERS” policy.

The States, as sovereign entities themselves, have every right, and duty, to take those steps necessary to protect themselves from invading hordes if the Federal Government cannot or, as is evident, will not protect the States from invasion.

Texas and Florida are therefore compelled to act to protect themselves from invasion and have done so since the Harris-Biden Administration has refused to do so.

The Administration even tries to prevent the States from protecting their own borders.

These facts suggest the Administration isn’t merely enabling invasion of the Country, it is involved in orchestrating it. This is unconscionable.

The States—all fifty of them—have every right to protect their borders from invasion. They are sovereign entities. The sovereignty of the States is manifested through the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment sets forth,

“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.”

The Tenth Amendment is a statement of FEDERALISM. This means that sovereignty is shared between the Federal Government and the States.

The Administration’s actions are inconsistent with the sovereignty of the States, protected under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and with the DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM, underlying the Tenth Amendment.

The Administration’s actions are also inconsistent with the DOCTRINE OF REPUBLICANISM, mandated by Article 4 of the Constitution, and inconsistent, as well, with its obligations to the States under Article 4.

The States would never agree to revisions of the Constitution that would operate as waivers of Federal Government obligations under Article 4 of the Constitution and of States’ sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Administration’s unwillingness to protect the States from invasion and, at once, attempting to foreclose States from protecting themselves, is not only unconscionable, it is patently illegal, amounting to treachery and betrayal of the Nation, Constitution, and People.


 

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Arbalest Quarrel

Subscribe
Notify of
26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arny
Arny (@dmaxter)
23 days ago

Guess who isn’t afraid of losing their jobs due to cheap labor ? lol

JimmyS
JimmyS (@jimmys)
24 days ago

Great series. Yet still crickets out of anyone who we granted authority to instigate a lawful remedy. Fucking crickets.

How much more evidence do you need before you recognize that the rule of law is gone, and the entire government has gone full-on traitor?

How much more treason is required before you get off your couch and open your gun safe?

Qui Bono?
Qui Bono? (@ctyankee1976)
24 days ago

To say that “The Harris-Biden Administration is actively inviting the invasion of the Nation” is hyperbolic and disingenuous; I agree that the border situation has been badly mishandled by the current administration, but it was decades in the making and both parties are to blame. Current immigration restrictions are based on century-old racist beliefs – the same racist views that gave us New York City’s discriminatory gun permit law. It is also currently far too expensive and difficult for immigrants to enter the country and obtain citizenship. (My great-grand parents simply got off the boat and passed through Castle Garden… Read more »

Capn Dad
Capn Dad (@capndad)
24 days ago
Reply to  Qui Bono?

To say that the Biden administration isn’t inviting illegal immigration into my country is disingenuous. You betray your agenda by calling our immigration laws “racist”. I prefer to call them sensible.

Qui Bono?
Qui Bono? (@ctyankee1976)
24 days ago
Reply to  Capn Dad

I don’t have an “agenda,” except to confront disinformation when I see it. Learn some history; start with the Chinese Exclusion Act, then look at the quotas imposed in the early 20th century.

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
24 days ago
Reply to  Qui Bono?

the current admin are dictting to CBP, INS, and other FedGov agencies how they manage the borders. When Sleepy Joe ascended the throne the bordr was pretty well secured, incursions were dealt with effectively, and the numbers swarming accross it were relatively small. Those who were allowed in were in the main well vetted. iN the last year, this has radically changed.. the rules by which the boreer, and all immigratioin, are managed have radically changed, and are largely ignored. Don’t forget.. it falls exclusively to THE PRESIDENT to secure the borders and establish protocols regarding who comes in and… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
24 days ago
Reply to  Qui Bono?

Ok, well, here is some history: the 1965 Immigration Act, the basis of the current Immigration Act (with periodic changes in between) was authored by Ted Kennedy, who expressed the desire to bring more Irish into the U.S. Thus there is a quota for legal immigrants from each country. Prior to IMMACT 1965, immigration was based upon skills.
When skills based immigration began, I am not sure, but it was still clearly the basis for immigration in the 1956 Immigration Act.

loveaduck
loveaduck (@elbee1943)
23 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

As it should be, now. But we should look to our neighbors first for those skills.

john
john (@johnwestside4545)
24 days ago
Reply to  Capn Dad

There is nothing sensible about our immigration policies invite them they will come. Overwhelming the system is the goal much like europe yes we should look for the brightest and the best to become americans . We should not eusher them in to vote for a political party and help bankrupt the working class. There is a plan in place and it’s not our freedoms our government is looking to protect. They look to enrich their own pockets while taxing us into the poor house. A global citizenship is what is being framed for the future not America First or… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
24 days ago
Reply to  john

We all have Ted Kennedy to thank.

Lakefoot
Lakefoot (@not-registered)
24 days ago
Reply to  Qui Bono?

Could it be called “disingenuous” to say that the Biden administration directed the change of the immigration laws in a manner that removed most of the legal hazards to coming into this country illegally? Yes, the voluntary trip itself is very difficult, but once here they get a slip of paper that they can ignore and a ride to a distant city. They then receive help from local organizations regarding clothing, food, money, and a place to live. Put them in a sanctuary city and they have a greatly reduced concern of deportation. Millions received this message and embarked on… Read more »

Cruiser
Cruiser (@cop1771)
24 days ago

Those in Government don’t understand, it is our country, it is not theirs to give away!

JimmyS
JimmyS (@jimmys)
24 days ago
Reply to  Cruiser

You’re an idiot. Put up or shut up. All I see here is you on your knees, wiping off your chin, and frowning at the next official stepping up to be serviced.

loveaduck
loveaduck (@elbee1943)
23 days ago
Reply to  JimmyS

Explain, please.

Montana454Casull
Montana454Casull (@rld454c)
24 days ago

If these people entering illegally don’t respect our immigration laws , what makes the left think they will respect any of our laws ? They just turn these lawbreakers loose on American citizens and hope for the best . This is not how its suppose to work . They have a duty to protect Americans first . Not promote criminal activity . But with the riots this last couple years we see the Democrats promote lawless criminals and anarchy to forward thier communist agendas.

TStheDeplorable
TStheDeplorable (@tvsteinke)
24 days ago

There are many parts of the constitution that have a mandate but no remedy exists if the government fails to follow the mandate. That is because when the constitution was written they couldn’t imagine that those who reached the high seats of government would ever blatantly violate a clear provision of the constitution. If the constitution were written by the same founders, but with a glimpse at what would become of the nation, they would have beefed up many parts of it. If anyone were to sue under the constitutional provision requiring that the federal government protect the states from… Read more »

Qui Bono?
Qui Bono? (@ctyankee1976)
24 days ago

Of course the Founders could “imagine that those who reached the high seats of government would ever blatantly violate a clear provision of the constitution.” That’s exactly why they divided the powers of government between 3branches, creating a system of checks and balances; that’s also exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights. That’s also why government officials can be impeached.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
24 days ago
Reply to  Qui Bono?

I don’t think that the founding fathers could conceive of the kinds and magnitude of the political corruption that is commonly practiced, today.

swmft
swmft (@swmft)
24 days ago

they thought the people would lynch the criminals in government

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
24 days ago

they DID mention something about a remedy to ensure “the security of a free state” (state in this context meaning civil society, not a political entity)

john
john (@johnwestside4545)
25 days ago

Many entering our country illegally surrender and claim asylum knowing full well it will take years to reach a hearing and will be permitted to stay. The democrats understand this and have proposed a path to citizenship or want to grant amnesty. The democrats have advanced sanctuary cities where the local democrats control local programs that allow the american taxpayer to flip the cost of those programs. In the end no matter what you call the issues at our southern borders it has a political ramifications. Obama changed the term illegal immigrant to undocumented alien. Remember words have meanings and… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona (@arizona)
25 days ago
Reply to  john

That 1.66 million is just what they caught, and then released in the interior of the US, giving them hotel rooms and plane tickets for all over the country, at your expense! Annually, CBP only makes contact with 1/3 of border invaders. So there are another 3.3 million illegal aliens who invaded America and were never caught last year, bringing the total to about 5 million. In one damn year! Yale and Princeton estimate the current illegal population at 25 million, not the scam 11 million that has been spouted for 30 years. This is why real wages have declined… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
24 days ago
Reply to  john

the term “illegal immigrant” is a self-contained oxymoron. If one is an “immigrant” that means they have gone thoguth the process, complied with all relative laws, and been approved to lawfully enter and take up residence. Nothing “illegal” about any immigrant, unless, like that Omar creature, there was fraud committed during the process. “illegal” means not in complaince with the laws, or something done in violation of such laws. An “illegal” person is noe who has NOT complied with the laws. Illegal alien, unlawful foreign invader, border jumper, tresspasser, criminal, are all pretty much synonymous in the context of border… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
24 days ago
Reply to  Tionico

Yes, the proper term is “illegal alien”.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
24 days ago
Reply to  john

Yes, their claims do not fit the political asylum requirements.

Arizona
Arizona (@arizona)
25 days ago

Time for accountability.