The word “constitution” means a declaration of the fundamental laws or principles by which a government of a nation must operate, it is the supreme written will of the people. Because a constitution is the supreme law of the land it preempts any  statute, or rule that is inconsistent with it.

Although a constitution may seem to stand in the way of perceived progress, the very nature of a constitution provides stability in which the people can find protection from those in government that seek to violate and/or oppress the people it governs. It helps to provide a refuge for the people from sudden and violent fluctuations of public opinion, and the impulses of mere majorities. Thus when a statute or rule is in conflict with the constitution, constitutional provisions must prevail.

Another purpose for a constitution is to preserve the rights of the individual citizens by protecting their lives, liberties, and property. It establishes limits in which the government must work within in order to protect the people from arbitrary actions by their own government or by the courts. The people must not allow public policy to over ride constitutional mandates.
    In April and May of 2002, two new Michigan laws went into affect allowing law enforcement officers to enter your home without presenting a warrant or affidavit, and search your home and private property. These officers are also allowed to take whatever they want out of your home without the previously required inventory list provided to you when they leave. These Public Acts are “P.A. 112” and “P.A. 128” of the year 2002.

    Our legislators, both State and Federal have made a concerted effort over the past thirty to forty years to minimize the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have made great strides to replace our Constitution with corporate laws disguised as constitutional laws. The Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land, and it is the legislator’s sworn duty to uphold and support the Constitution. These new laws clearly violate our constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment for the Constitution  reads:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The Constitution creates the bedrock, the foundation of this nation in which the authority that government has, and the liberties that the people enjoy, originate. Prior to the establishment of these new laws, law enforcement officers were required to provide a copy of the search warrant and an inventory list of items confiscated, to the person whose property was searched, or left on the premises if the person was not present at the time of the search. These new laws bring an end to that obligation.

    Those that are in favor of these changes state that it helps to protect victims in cases such as domestic violence, or of a sexual assault. The problem with these laws is that there are no restrictions as to when or where these laws can be used. And, because this information can now be withheld from the person whose property was searched, that person is now subjected to unnecessary delays that would hinder his/her ability to defend themselves.

    And, what happens to people who have been violated by an unconstitutional search when the police find nothing to charge him or her with? What about their rights? Because this information can now be exempted from public disclosure, how does the victim of an unconstitutional search find recourse for the injuries he or she has experienced? Remember, that if the person that was searched tries to sue the law enforcement agency that conducted the search, the information concerning the search warrant and the things the police removed from their home or property can be exempted from public disclosure until the time of the trial.     

    The point here is that these new laws are just another incremental step toward government tyranny and oppression. The establishment of a “Police State,” and the establishment of the United Nation’s control over this nation. The people in Michigan and throughout this nation must standup and object to these types of laws, and demand that they be repealed immediately.
The government will undoubtedly respond by telling the public we have a crisis at hand, and they have to use such unconstitutional laws to protect the public and this nation. In many cases this is simply ridiculous. What the government has done is either create a crisis or allow someone else to create a crisis, in order to justify the actions the government institutes. Actions, that under normal circumstances the American public would not accept. This is known as the Hegelian Principle.

    The Michigan state legislators must be made to understand that these draconian laws, when added to the ones already in place will not help to make this state or country safer, but will only help to raise the level of suspicion and fear felt towards the government. The Constitution was written to establish a foundation in which to provide for the growth and safety of this nation, as well as to provide fundamental laws that limit the power of government, while at the same time allowing people to live in safety without the fear of an oppressive government infringing on their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the fundamental laws established by the Constitution that have made this nation great. It will be the continued attacks on the Constitution by this nation’s political leaders and judges that, if not stopped by the people, will ultimately bring this nation down.

    Our legislators must be reminded that when they took the oath of office, they created an obligation for themselves to defend the Constitution. They must be reminded that when they create laws that violate the Constitution for the United States of America, they are also working towards destroying the very fundamental laws that give them their authority. The Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of the land, and must be treated as such.

    These two Public Acts, 112 & 128, are in violation of the Constitution for the United States of America and need to be repealed. It is the duty and responsibility of the sovereign citizens of Michigan to collectively voice their objections concerning these laws. It is their duty and responsibility to ensure that this state’s legislators remain honor bound to defend the Constitution of this state and of the United States of America. It is your responsibility to contact your state representatives and voice your objections. United We Stand, or Divided We Will Fall!



And Remind Them It Is Election Time!





Signed:
















Please make exact copies of this paper and distribute freely.












State of Michigan legislators that supported one or both of these two laws.


Adamini
Allen
Anderson
Basham
Bernero
Birkholz
Bisbee
Bishop
Bogardus
Bovin
Bradstreet
Brown, B.
Brown, C.
Brown, R.
Callahan
Cassis
Caul
Clark, I.
Clarke, H.
Daniels
Dennis
DeRossett
DeWeese
Drolet
Ehardt
Faunce
Frank
Garza
George
Gieleghem
Gilbert
Godchaux
Gosselin
Hager
Hale
Hansen
Hardman
Hart
Howell
Hummel
Jacobs
Jamnick
Jansen
Jelinek
Johnson, Rick
Johnson, Ruth
Julian
Koetje
Kolb
Kooiman
Kowall
Kuipers
LaSata
Lemmons
Lipsey
Mans
McConico
Mead
Meyer
Middaugh
Minore
Mortimer
Murphy
Neumann
Newell
O’Neil
Palmer
Pappageorge
Patterson
Pestka
Phillips
Plakas
Pumford
Quarles
Raczkowski
Richardville
Richner
Rivet
Rocca
Schauer
Schermesser
Scranton
Shackleton
Sheltrown
Shulman
Spade
Stamas
Stewart
Switalski
Tabor
Thomas
Toy
Van Woerkom
Vander Roest
Vander Veen
Vear
Voorhees
Waters
Williams
Wojno
Woodward
Woronchak
Zelenko

    Over the past eight months the people in this country have been inundated with articles about the Homeland Security Agency. Yet none of these articles have ever explained where the idea for this agency originated, and for good reason.

    In September, 1961, President Kennedy accepted a United Nations plan to dismantle national armies. This plan is called “State Department Publication 7277.” Referred to as “7277,” this plan laid out the three stages of disarmament the United States, Soviet Union, and other countries around the world would have to follow. Once this plan was completed people around the world would have to rely on the United Nations to protect their countries. By the third and final stage of “7277” all countries would among other requirements:

• Retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order.
• Support and provide agreed manpower for a UN Peace Keeping Force.
• All armaments not needed for internal security or UN peace Keeping Forces would be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
• Disband systems of reserve forces, and organizational arrangements comprising and supporting their national armies.
• Terminate the employment of civilian personnel associated with the military.

    It is in the third and final stage where the Homeland Security Agency finally comes into play. According to “7277” the completion of the third stage would leave the United States with only enough troops to provide internal security within our borders. To accomplish this the Federal government has to create an agency to oversee the administration of the different sub-agencies that would be pulled together under this one umbrella.

    The precursor to the Homeland Security Agency was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA’s purpose was to begin the process of bringing together the military, FBI, BATF, Immigration and Naturalization Agency, local and state police departments, National Guard, and many other government agencies in an effort to begin blending together theses agencies. While this was happening, it was the responsibility of Congress to pass legislation that would become law to help facilitate this process. All this was done in incremental steps so as to not alarm the general public.

    The Multi Jurisdictional Task Force (MJTF) is a very good example of this blending process. It brought together the military, FBI, BATF, local and state law enforcement agencies and taught them to work together, and also taught the local and state police departments how to use military tactics.

    Another example of this blending process are the “Urban Warfare” exercises that have been conducted over the past four or five years. These exercises had names like: Operation Last Dance, Exercise Bold Fist, Operation Urban Warrior, Topoff, and Gunslinger 2000. The purpose of these exercises was to train these different agencies to work together under one umbrella - Homeland Security Agency.

     A current debate between President Bush and Congress is over the civilian employees who will be working for the Homeland Security Agency. The problem that President Bush is having over these civilian employees is that according to “7277” he must eliminate them. So in order to terminate them he has to dissolve their connection with their union, and Congress is resisting that move. If he should succeed in breaking the union ties with the civilian employees it will explain why President Bush was so confident that this new agency will not be the cash cow that so many are anticipating. 

    Another issue that has recently appeared in the news is the repeal of the “Posse Comitatus Act”. In 1878, Congress passed this “Act” in order to stop the use of the military for local law enforcement matters. Though Congress has done much over the past ten years to weaken the authority of this “Act”, it would still require the repeal of it to give the Homeland Security Agency full authority to use the military for law enforcement matters, whether there was an national emergency or not.

    Our Constitution says that the Federal government has the authority to raise armies for the defense of this nation. The Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to turn the responsibility of defending this nation over to another government. And, this kind of authority over the people that the Homeland Security Agency will have, will do little to make people feel safe, and do much to raise the suspicion and fear over the true motives of those in government. The elimination of our civil rights, followed by tyranny and oppression can only be the final result from such authority.   




Daniel Danz

Van Buren Twp