Do New York Residents and Citizens Really Have a Private Property Right Interest in Their Guns?

Part 2: Do New York Residents and Citizens Really Have a Private Property Right Interest in Their Guns?

CAPSULE SUMMARY

In the previous installment of this multi-part series, we discussed the notion of a private property interest as existent in the U.S. Constitution, and we provided you with various legal definitions of ‘property.’ We did this so you would be able to better understand and appreciate how the New York Safe Act and related New York law operate to deprive New York residents and gun owners of their right to effectively transfer their firearms to other individuals, namely and particularly, their heirs, upon the death of the original owners of the firearms.If you wish to give your firearms to your heirs when you die, you need to become familiar with substantially more legal terminology that you will come across in New York law.In this installment, Part 2, we will accomplish two things. First, we will provide you with several more definitions of common legal terminology that appear in New York law that negatively impact a gun owner’s private property interest in his or her own firearms. Second, we will drill down into the notion ‘private property.’ You will come to appreciate that the Founders of our Republic did, in fact, respect the notion of a private property right and private property interest as reflected in the Bill of Rights, and you will also come to understand that New York law insidiously undermines one’s private property right and interest as applied to one’s own guns.

LEGAL TERMINOLOGY YOU NEED TO KNOW

Several legal terminology that you need to have an understanding of and appreciation for include: ‘testator,’ ‘will,’ ‘heir,’ ‘legatee,’ ‘bequest,’ ‘decedent,’ ‘estate,’ ‘executor,’ and ‘fiduciary.’The word, ‘testator,’ refers to “a person who makes a will; esp. a person who dies leaving a will.” A similar word, ‘testation’ refers to the “disposal of property by will.”The term, ‘will,’ – more usually referring to a written instrument – means, ‘the legal expression of an individual’s wishes about the disposition of his or her property after death; esp., a document by which a person directs his or her estate to be distributed upon death.”The term, ‘executor,’ means ‘a person named by a testator to carry out the provisions of the testator’s will.’The term, ‘fiduciary,’ means ‘a person who is required to act for the benefit of another person on all matters within the scope of their relationship; one who owes to another the duties of good faith, trust, confidence, and candor.’ So, the executor of a testator’s will owes the testator the duties of good faith, trust, confidence and candor in carrying out the provisions of the testator’s will.Suppose a person doesn’t leave a will. How is the decedent’s property to be disposed of?Every State has laws that determine how a person’s property is to be distributed in the event a person doesn’t leave a will. This process of distribution, in the absence of a will, is called intestate succession. An heir, also referred to as ‘legal heir,’ is ‘a person who, under the laws of intestacy, is entitled to receive an intestate decedent’s property.’The term, ‘decedent,’ means, simply, ‘a dead person, especially, one who has died recently.’ And the term, ‘legatee,’ is defined as ‘one who is named in a will to take personal property; one who has received a legacy or bequest.’ Think of the legatee as an heir who is specifically named in a will. The legatee is a person who takes property under the will of the testator.The term, ‘bequest,’ is ‘the act of giving property (usually personal property) by will.’ The verb form of that word, ‘bequeath,’ means, then, ‘to give property (usually personal property) by will.’In this multi-series article we will use the term ‘heir’ to refer generally to a close family relation to whom a decedent’s firearms, as personal property, go, whether by intestate succession or by the written will of the decedent testator.Finally, the term ‘estate’ means, in law, “the amount, degree, nature, and quality of a person’s interest in land or other property.”Let’s consider an example to see how these various legal expressions work.Let’s say, I am a New York resident and I have one adult son. I own and possess several firearms, many of which are extremely rare heirlooms – commemorative editions of rifles, pistols and shotguns, plated in gold and silver. Let us say that much of my wealth is tied to these firearms that, collectively, are worth several thousand dollars, perhaps tens of thousands of dollars, and that, together, they constitute a considerable dollar sum of my estate. I wish to give the entire collection to my son once I am gone. I hire an attorney to draft a will for me. I am the testator of that will. In that will, I bequeath the entire collection of firearms to my son, the legatee and legal heir of my firearms’ collection. I also choose to appoint the lawyer as my executor. As executor of my will, the lawyer has a fiduciary obligation to me is to see that my wishes are fulfilled in accordance with the terms of my will, after I am gone. The executor will have an extraordinarily difficult time executing my will because New York gun laws are extremely restrictive and complex, not at all straightforward.

THE NOTION OF ‘PRIVATE PROPERTY’ IN AMERICA

Before we tackle the problems associated with New York law that generally defeat one’s property interest in his or her firearm or collection of firearms, we need to spend a little more time on the notion of ‘private property.’

Does An American Citizen Really Have A Right In And To Private Property?

We have previously pointed to the Fifth Amendment “Takings clause” as the place where one finds a right of ownership in property. The Fifth Amendment sets forth in full: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”Now, to be clear, the Fifth Amendment doesn’t expressly assert private ownership of property in terms of a specific, expressly asserted “right” in the sense, for example, that the Second Amendment clearly speaks of “the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. . . .” Nonetheless, the implication is clear.The last clause of the Fifth Amendment says “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The expression ‘private property’ does expressly appear in the Fifth Amendment even if the right underlying it does not. Still, the right exists, even if only implied. For, if the right to own property in a personal capacity did not exist, then the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment would be meaningless. The Federal Government or a State Government would have no duty to provide a person just compensation for one’s property if a “right” in and to that property didn’t first exist. So, the right in and to private property must exist in order to make sense of a Government’s duty to provide just compensation for the taking of it.Basically, the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment says that no governmental body shall take a person’s private property for public benefit, without compensating the owner justly for it. The expression ‘just compensation’ is understood in law to mean ‘fair market value.’ Now proponents of the NY Safe Act will likely point out that the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply here even if New York law does interfere with a gun owner’s desire to transfer his firearms to others. Proponents of NY Safe may argue that such interference with one’s private property – one’s firearms – doesn’t amount to a “Taking” under the Fifth Amendment at all because New York isn’t actually appropriating the firearms. Proponents of NY Safe might point out that the executor of the decedent original owner of the firearms isn’t prevented from selling the guns to a resident outside of New York or selling them to a licensed gun dealer in New York.  Still, one might reasonably respond that, to the extent a firearms’ owner isn’t able to do what he wishes with them – bequeath them to his or her heirs – the result is a constructive taking of them.Moreover, if a firearms’ owner is prevented from transferring his firearms to his or her heirs and the executor of the gun owner’s estate is compelled to sell the firearms in order to realize some monetary gain for them on behalf of the heirs, that gain is likely to be far less than the fair market value for the firearms.  A prospective buyer of the firearms would be well aware that the executor of the firearms’ owner’s estate is compelled to sell the firearms or, otherwise, the prospective buyer could certainly learn, with little effort, that the firearms must be disposed of because the heirs are ineligible under New York law to receive them.But proponents of the NY Safe Act might then argue that the State of New York isn’t taking one’s firearms because, under the Fifth Amendment, the taking of private property must be for a public benefit, and there is no public benefit associated with the firearms. There are two responses to that argument.First, since proponents of NY Safe presume that firearms are, ipso facto, dangerous instrumentalities, whose mere presence constitutes a danger to the public, the interference with one’s private property interest in them does, to the minds of proponents of NY Safe, confer a benefit on the public – namely, the removal of them from private hands. The firearms likely must either be transferred to someone outside the State or destroyed by the police, in the State.The benefit, at least to proponents of the Safe Act, however faulty their reasoning, is that public safety in general is increased to the extent that the number of firearms in private hands is decreased. The benefit to the public might be considered, then, a ‘constructive benefit’ if not an actual benefit. So, interference with one’s private property interest in firearms does amount to a taking for the public benefit. If so, then the Government is itself obligated, under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to provide the owner’s heirs, the fair market value for the firearms – if New York law does not otherwise permit the owner’s heirs to receive the firearms upon the original owner’s death, pursuant to the original owner’s intent as expressed in his will and if the executor of the estate is unable, after diligent effort, to find a buyer outside the State or a licensed gun dealer inside the State who is willing to pay the executor the fair market value for them.Second, even if the interference with one’s ownership interest in firearms does not really amount to a taking under the Fifth Amendment precisely because no actual public benefit exists, still, in some instances, where private property interests are at stake, the Government’s interference with one’s private property interests may amount to a taking, notwithstanding the absence of a public benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that interference with a person’s attempt to pass property to others upon death may constitute a “per se” taking. See, Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 716-18 (1987). If so, then, New York’s interference with a person’s desire to pass one’s firearms to one’s heirs may constitute a per se taking under the Hodel holding.The concept of ‘private property’ also appears, although tacitly,’ in the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Third Amendment says, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”The Third Amendment presumption is that a person owns his or her house. One’s house is, then, one’s private property. The Third Amendment makes clear that a soldier of the Federal Government shall not, in peace time, be allowed to enter or to stay in a person’s house unless the owner of the house – that is to say, the owner of that property – so allows it. During times of war, the Government can override the consent of the owner but, any overriding proviso must clearly be set forth in law.How many American citizens do you suppose are familiar with the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Probably, not many to be sure. Just imagine a circumstance, in the not too distant future, when, as economic calamity strikes this Country, and as our sacred rights and liberties become further eroded, under the guise of “National Security, the police and military demand access to an American’s home, your home. If this idea seems far-fetched, just keep in mind that it is only through the U.S. Constitution that Government in this Country is kept in check. As the mainframe of our Constitution -- the Articles and Sections and Amendments that comprise it -- becomes ignored or defeated – improbable events become likely events, and unlikely events become actual.In the next installment of this multi-series Article We will show you that, under present New York law, a New York resident and citizen of the United States does not have absolute control over his or her own firearms. That means that one’s private property interest is not preserved. If so, that is in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention to the New York State Constitution as well. We will begin to look at actual New York Statutes. We will list them, describe them, and explain how they operate to defeat one’s private property interest in one’s own firearms as they interfere with one’s right to make bequests of firearms to one’s heirs.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

GUNS, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION

PART 1: GUNS, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION

Question For New York Gun Owners: Do You Think Your Firearms Are Your Private Property? If So, You Are In For A Rude Awakening!The NY Safe Act And Other Provisions Of New York Antigun Laws Wrongly Destroy Gun Owners Private Property Rights And Interest In Their Own Guns.No one can rationally deny that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the cornerstone of the right of the American People to possess firearms. Still, scant attention is paid to the private property interest embedded in the Second Amendment right of the People to Keep and Bear arms. And too little attention is paid to the independent nature of private property interests in this Country.The “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment prevents the Federal Government from taking one’s private property without just compensation. The “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, as directed originally and alone to the Federal Government, applies to the States, as well, through the Fourteenth Amendment.  This means that a State Government, too, is not permitted to take one’s private property without just compensation.The “Takings Clause,” as applied to both State Governments and to the Federal Government operates as a check and safeguard against a Government’s unlawful attempt to secure unto itself the private property of a citizen. Such taking of a citizen’s private property without just compensation deprives and denies a citizen the use and enjoyment of it and destroys the economic value associated with it.In our previous article we discussed generally how New York law undercuts one’s possessory and legal interest in one’s firearms – firearms that are a person’s private property. We discussed how New York law operates to dispossess the owner of his or her personal interest in and enjoyment of those firearms as private property. We pointed to New York law that effectively denies a gun owner the inalienable right to effectuate the bequest of firearms to his or her heirs.We now take a closer look at those New York Statutes that make it extremely difficult for person to transfer his or her private property – one’s firearms – to one’s heirs. By denying a New York resident and citizen of the United States the right to quickly and easily transfer legal ownership and possession of one’s firearms to one’s heirs – assuming the law permits one to do so at all – New York law essentially and effectively deprives the owner of his or her property without just compensation and without due process of law.Because of the length of this article, we have broken it down into several parts. One new part or installment will be posted every day.

NEW YORK STATUTES CONTRAVENE BOTH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND NEW YORK’S STATE CONSTITUTION

New York State Statutes operate in derogation to the U.S. Constitution and in derogation of New York’s State Constitution, undermining New York firearms’ owners’ property interest in their own firearms.New York Statutes deprive gun owners of their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And New York Statutes amount to an unconscionable taking of gun owners’ private property without just compensation in derogation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. New York Statutes are also inconsistent with New York’s State Constitution. New York Statutes deprive gun owners of their private property rights in firearms in contravention to NY CLS Const Art I, § 7(a). That Article prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. And New York Statutes deprive gun owners of their private property rights in contravention to NY CLS Const Art I, § 11, which states categorically that New York residents and citizens shall not be denied the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled.

WHAT IS “PROPERTY?”

The words ‘property’ and ‘private property’ are often bandied about. And the meanings of these expressions may seem obvious. But, colloquial meanings aside, you should know what the legal definitions of the words are.Legal definitions of words are important – in fact, critical – because the legal meanings given to words as embodied in law impact your rights and liberties. By the same token, when government officials ignore the plain legal meanings of words, they denigrate the U.S. Constitution, and the American People suffer the consequences.The primary source for the legal definitions of words is Black’s Law Dictionary. The definitions we give you here are those listed in the Ninth Edition of that Dictionary.Property takes one of two forms: personal property and real property. The expression ‘real property’ means ‘land and everything attached to, or erected on it, excluding anything that can be severed without injury to the land.’ We are not concerned with the notion of ‘real property’ here. We are concerned with the notion of ‘personal property.’ The expression, ‘personal property’ means ‘any movable or intangible property that is subject to ownership and not classified as real property.’Intangible personal property refers to intellectual property such as patents and trademarks and copyrights. And we are not talking about intangible personal property here either. We are talking about tangible personal property – that is to say, physical property. Firearms fall within the definition ‘tangible personal property’ because firearms are physical, movable objects, not attached to or erected on land. Now, both real property and personal property can be one of two types: public or private. The expression, ‘public property’ means ‘State or community-owned property not restricted to any one individual’s use or possession.’ The other kind of ‘real property’ and ‘personal property’ is ‘private property.’When talking about firearms, we are referring to ‘private property’ – property that is owned by the individual. We are not talking about property that is owned by the State or property that is owned collectively by the public – that is to say – the community.Your firearms are private property, not public property. Your firearms are not the property of the State and they are not owned collectively by the public. You paid for your firearms out-of-pocket with hard-earned dollars. They belong to you and to you alone. So your firearms are private property – your private property.In law, ‘private property’ means something more than simply property that isn’t State owned or community owned. The expression ‘private property’ means, in law, ‘property protected from public appropriation – over which the owner has exclusive and absolute rights.’ Think about that definition for a moment. The notion of private property exemplifies ideas of exclusive ownership and absolute control by the individual.Your firearms, like the clothes on your back and the automobile in your garage and the gas range and refrigerator in your home, all of which you paid out-of-pocket for, are your private property – property that you have exclusive ownership rights in and to and absolute power over. That is what it means for a citizen in a capitalist society to own property.To the extent that you control your property and to the extent that you have exclusive right to the use and enjoyment of it – to keep it or to sell it or to gift it to another, as you wish – the notion of ‘private property’ is preserved. And, to the extent that your private property rights are infringed or impinged upon, the notion of ‘private property’ is defeated.In the next installment of this article we will provide you with terminology that you need to know to fully appreciate the extent to which the NY Safe Act upends your property interest in your own firearms.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

OPEN LETTER TO THE NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

OPEN LETTER TO THE NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION

ARBALEST GROUP'S OPEN LETTER TO EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

POSTED BY THE FOUNDERS OF ARBALEST GROUP, LLC., CREATORS OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL WEBSITE

_________________________________________________February 9, 2015The Honorable_______________________United States Senate/United States House of Representatives_______________, Washington, D.C._______Dear Senator/Congressman/Congresswoman:A major flaw exists in the New York Safe Act and in the Penal Code of New York that has not been previously acknowledged and which requires immediate attention. This flaw involves bequests of firearms. Present New York law undermines a person’s fundamental right of ownership in his own private property because it defeats the ability of a New York gun owner and testator to effectively transfer firearms to the testator’s New York resident heirs.We have written to each member of the New York State Legislature, and to the New York Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, and to officials within the Governor’s administration, bringing this critical matter to their attention.We are urging the New York Legislature to amend New York Law to allow bequests of firearms to be honored and fulfilled in strict accordance with the wishes of a testator.Only then will the fundamental right in and to one’s private property be preserved. We ask for your full support in this endeavor. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.Sincerely,Stephen L. D’AndrilliPresident, Arbalest Group, LLC.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved. 

OPEN LETTER TO THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE AND TO NEW YORK STATE OFFICIALS

ARBALEST GROUP'S OPEN LETTER TO EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE, AND TO THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TO THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

POSTED BY THE FOUNDERS OF ARBALEST GROUP, LLC., CREATORS OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL WEBSITE

_________________________________________________February 9, 2015The Honorable______________________Legislative Office BuildingAlbany, New York  12247Dear Senator/Assemblyman/Assemblywoman:We are writing to you on our own behalf and on behalf of tens of thousands of concerned New York gun owners and visitors to our website, the Arbalest Quarrel. You may not be aware of this but a major flaw exists in the New York Safe Act and in the Penal Code of New York that has not been previously addressed. The existence of this flaw, involving bequests of gun collections, undercuts the fundamental right a New York resident and citizen has in his private property.Many New York residents have extraordinarily valuable firearms collections that fall under the Safe Act. These collections are worth tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars. The owners of these valuable gun collections may wish to pass the collections to their heirs who live in New York State. They cannot do so. We urge you to change New York law to permit the transfer of a decedent’s gun collection to the decedent’s heir or heirs, who reside in the State of New York, and to allow the transfer to proceed quickly, free of obstacles.Consider how present New York law operates to denigrate private property rights.The executor of a decedent’s estate seeks to fulfill the terms of the decedent’s will. The will specifies that an expensive gun collection is to go to the decedent’s spouse or to one or more of decedent’s adult children. Present New York law doesn’t permit the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate simply to turn the gun collection directly over to the decedent’s heirs who reside in New York; nor can the lawful possessor of such property of a decedent continue to hold onto the property so long as the possessor of that property remains in New York.NY CLS Penal § 265.20a(1)(f) says, “A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful posessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter.” And the difficulties for the executor or administrator of a decedent’s estate, or for the lawful possessor of and heir to that valuable gun collection who resides in New York, do not end there.Under Section 37(A) through (F) of the Safe Act, codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (a) through (f), many firearms are defined as assault weapons. A gun that is defined as an ‘assault weapon’ is a banned weapon. The Safe Act prohibits the sale or exchange of assault weapons between New York residents unless the sale or exchange is to an authorized New York purchaser, namely a licensed New York gun dealer. Otherwise, the sale or exchange must be to an individual or entity residing outside of New York. So, an heir to a valuable collection of assault weapons, who resides in New York, cannot keep those weapons even if that heir is duly licensed to possess firearms unless that heir holds a valid New York gun dealer or gunsmith license issued pursuant to NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2).Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h), says, inter alia,“ Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision . . . that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state. . . .” Now suppose the heir to a decedent’s expensive gun collection, who resides in New York, doesn’t want to dispose of the gun collection but wishes to keep it, in accordance with the decedent’s express wishes. That heir has no choice if he or she wishes to remain in New York. New York law is coercive. It severely limits a person’s enjoyment in one’s own private property. Moreover, to compel disposal of a gun collection almost certainly will substantially diminish the dollar value of that property. A New York resident and heir to an expensive gun collection may not – probably will not – be able to find a buyer, out-of-state, willing or able to purchase the gun collection at a fair market price.A New York resident and his or her family who have lived their entire lives in New York are faced, then, with an intractable problem. If the heir to a valuable firearms’ collection wishes to remain in New York, as the heir would, the heir must give up possession of the gun collection, which he or she definitely would not wish to do. Present New York law does not permit the heir to both remain in New York and hold onto the decedent’s entire bequest. Present New York law places the heir to a valuable gun collection in extremity. This is an intolerable situation. It’s a situation that need not exist and will not continue to exist if appropriate changes to New York law are made. And changes to New York law must be made to honor a decedent’s wishes. These changes to the law are necessary if the idea of the sanctity of one’s private property is to be credible in New York.Please give the matter discussed here your urgent attention. Tens of thousands of New York residents and gun owners are negatively impacted by the language of New York law, as shown in this letter. They are bewildered by and frustrated by provisions of the NY Safe Act and the Penal Code of New York that operate to take their private property from them without due process of law and without just compensation. Be advised, we share our information and our views with many distinguished individuals, other major websites, and several noteworthy organizations with whom and with which we have a close business and professional relationship.A prompt reply is requested so we can respond to the thousands of New York residents who are seeking an effective resolution to the critical private property rights issue discussed in this letter.Sincerely, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, President, Arbalest Group, LLC.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE ARBALEST QUARREL'S RATIONALE FOR WRITING TO THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE, TO THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TO THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL

The New York Safe Act, signed into law by New York Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, is poorly drafted legislation. It was authorized without due process and in defiance of New York’s own State Constitution.The Safe Act is the Government’s model for undercutting the Second Amendment. The public knows this. But, what is not understood by most is that the Safe Act is destructive of private property rights too. The antigun establishment argues that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, not an individual right. But, in the seminal case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not merely a collective right. A person need not be a member of a State militia or other governmental military force to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.Moreover, an implication can be drawn from the Heller decision. Since an American citizen has the right, as an individual, to keep and bear arms, irrespective of membership in a State militia, this individual right to keep and bear arms presumes the citizen’s right to own the firearms he bears and keeps. Private property ownership is basic to a free America.The right of an American citizen to own property – to have exclusive and absolute ownership of property – is as fundamental a right to an American as the right to speak openly and freely under the First Amendment or to keep and bear arms under the Second.But, under the Safe Act a resident’s right of ownership in his own firearms is strained and constrained. New York law severely restricts a New York resident’s right to transfer ownership in his or her firearms to others upon the person’s death.New York residents may have one firearm worth a few hundred dollars or they may have collections of rare and expensive firearms worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars – perhaps millions of dollars. In either case, New York law restrains one’s ability to transfer firearms during one’s lifetime and restricts one’s ability to transfer firearms to one’s heirs upon the firearms’ owner’s death.The dollar value of a rare and expensive firearms’ collection may be severely compromised upon the death of a New York resident gun owner because New York law restricts transfers of firearms to heirs who happen to live in New York.In particular the New York Safe Act absolutely forbids the transfer of any firearm to an heir that is a Safe Act registered weapon unless that heir happens also to be a licensed New York gun dealer or an authorized police official.What does this mean for an individual who may happen to own a very rare and expensive firearm that happens to be a New York Safe Act registered weapon. Let’s consider an example.Suppose you have a gold-plated commemorative firearm that has a fair market value of $50,000.00, and suppose you wish to bequeath that firearm to your adult son or daughter upon your death. Suppose, further, that this gold-plated commemorative firearm is classified as a New York Safe Act registered weapon. Can you transfer that firearm – your personal property – to your adult son or daughter?Well, certainly nothing in New York law prevents you from bequeathing that firearm to your next of kin. But, the important question is whether your son or daughter can keep and enjoy that personal property, just as you had. And, there’s the rub.Your adult son or daughter can keep the firearm for up to 15 days. After that, the firearm must be turned over to the appropriate police official. At that point your son or daughter has up to one year to transfer or sell the firearm either to a licensed New York gun dealer or to a person or entity outside the State. If your adult heir fails to tell the police official how the Safe Act registered weapon is to be disposed of, the police official will destroy that firearm – a valuable collectible – one year from the date he or she obtains custody of it. There is no recourse. There is no remedy. There is no redress.Transference of firearms to a decedent’s rightful heirs creates an undue burden on the estate as the heirs may be ineligible to receive the firearms under the Safe Act. Thus, the Safe Act operates as an unconstitutional “taking” of one’s firearm in violation of the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This cannot be tolerated. This contempt for our Bill of Rights cannot be condoned.The Arbalest Quarrel has recently written to every member of the New York State Senate and Assembly, in Albany, New York, and to the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the New York and to the Attorney General for New York, requesting each of them to use his or her authority to amend New York law so that a New York resident and citizen of the United States may exercise the fundamental right of enjoyment in his or her private property – that such right may be preserved, consistent with the intent of the United States Constitution, the New York State Constitution, and the precepts of a capitalist society. The Arbalest Quarrel has also notified the New York Delegation in Washington D.C. of its action as well.If the notion of private property is to mean anything concrete in this Country, then no governmental body, State or Federal, should be allowed to undermine an American’s exclusive power over his or her private property. That means American citizens and law-abiding gun owners, including those citizens and gun owners who are residents of New York, should be able to transfer their firearms to their heirs, free of governmental interference and constraint. That is why New York law must be changed. It must comply with the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution, and with principles of a free market economy.The fundamental right of ownership and power over one’s private property must not be diminished by political machination. The fundamental right of enjoyment in one’s private property, as protected in the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, is as basic and as important and as fundamental a right to an American as any other right set forth in the Bill of Rights.We are posting our letter on the Arbalest Quarrel website. It appears as a separate blog post. We shall keep our readers apprised of the results: who responds, and who fails to respond to our letter; and what each respondent has said in reply to our letter.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

HOW DID THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT BECOME LAW? LET’S ASK THE “THREE MEN IN A ROOM?

A new scandal has hit Albany, New York – a big one!  The arrest of the powerful New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, by the FBI, on Friday, January 23, 2015, has sent shock waves across the State, most likely affecting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Administration. The arrest of Sheldon Silver on corruption charges has less to do with Silver than it does for the way legislation affecting the rights and liberties of over 20 million New Yorkers has been and continues to be compromised by an elite group of elected officials – the “three men in a room” – Governor Cuomo, Assembly Speaker Silver, and the State Senate leader – whom the Governor has jokingly referred to as “the three amigos.” An overview of the Complaint filed in federal court, on January 21, 2015, bears this point out. It provides a disturbing picture of how business has been conducted in Albany for many, many years. The Complaint says in pertinent part: “Sheldon Silver, the defendant, has engaged in and continues to engage in a secret and corrupt scheme to deprive the citizens of the State of New York of his honest services, and to extort individuals and entities under color of official right, as an elected legislator and as Speaker of the New York State Assembly.”The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York’s filing of felony corruption charges against Silver may cause Governor Cuomo to distance himself from the Assembly Speaker. Cuomo’s own actions cast a bright and disturbing light on Cuomo as well.On July 2, 2013 Cuomo created the Moreland Commission. Its purpose was twofold: to root out the very corruption the Complaint alleges Silver must now answer for and provide better governance for the residents of the State of New York. The Moreland Commission had the potential to be a good thing for New York State residents and it appears to be a bad thing for Silver.U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who filed the criminal case against Sheldon Silver on January 21, 2015, had testified before the Moreland Commission more than one year earlier. On September 17, 2013, Bharara pledged “the cooperation and assistance of [his] office with the Commission’s vitally important work.” He added, “Fighting public corruption has been a top priority for [Bharara] for a long while. . . .”Many of New York’s elite Legislators railed against the Commission and sued to have it disbanded. In their own filing, those Legislators argued the Commission’s actions trampled the Legislators’ Constitutional Rights. Imagine that.Less than one year after forming the Commission, Cuomo said, on March 29, 2014, he was disbanding it. On April 3, 2014 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District sent a letter to the Commission. In it Bharara said he was taking possession of the Commission’s case files. He questioned whether the Governor was abandoning his commitment to fight public corruption. Cuomo, for his part, was petulant. According to a story published in Crain’s Insider on April 24, 2014, Cuomo told Crain’s: “‘It’s not a legal question. It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission. I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow.’” His power seems omnipotent.The concentration of power in New York has been, for many years, in the hands of a Triarchy, reminiscent of the First and Second Triumvirates that ruled ancient Rome. This modern Triarchy consists of the Governor, the Assembly Speaker, and the State Senate Leader. It has worked in secret, under cloak of darkness, without accountability. These three individuals seem to answer only to themselves as if they do not have to account to the public and do not have to account for their actions.Did these “three amigos” engineer the New York Safe Act and thrust it down the throats of New York residents and gun owners sans debate? It certainly seems so.News accounts report that Silver has temporarily stepped down as Assembly Speaker. However, in light of the serious criminal corruption charges the U.S. Attorney has brought against the Assembly Speaker, we question the wisdom of allowing Silver to continue to serve in the New York Assembly at all during the pendency of the case against him.There is another pressing issue that must be addressed. Since the propriety of the actions of “the three amigos” is in question, we feel the New York public has the right – in fact, the duty – to insist on a probe of how the New York Safe Act was drafted; how it was enacted; and, to what extent, if any, the creators of it knew or had good reason to know that enactment of the Act might undermine New York residents’ Constitutional Rights.If corruption is uncovered any step of the way, then the Safe Act should be repealed in its entirety.Despite the fact that some New York residents exhibit animosity toward guns and gun possession, elected officials, including and especially New York Legislators and the Governor, must operate with transparency and fairness on behalf of their constituencies.Any legislation – especially far-reaching legislation, such as the New York Safe Act, that negatively impacts not only one’s Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, but one’s Fifth Amendment private property interest in those firearms, and one’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights – must be discussed in the light of day, before enactment. The New York Safe Act wasn’t enacted protecting these Rights. The impetus for it and passage of it all took place in secretive session, out of the public view. Why? The “three amigos” must explain their actions.How was the New York Safe Act pushed through the Legislature so quickly? How were these individuals able to get away with this? Did the “three amigos” honestly think they were acting on behalf of the New York public for the benefit of the public, as the mainstream media portrayed them? Or were they merely furthering a private agenda, using the power of their respective Office to systematically deprive millions of New York residents and gun owners of their Rights and Liberties under both the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution? Did political ambitions motivate these individuals? If so, how? These are serious questions. And they deserve serious consideration. The public demands answers. The public demands accountability. New York residents and citizens must speak up. The damage to the Public’s Constitutional Rights and Liberties must be undone. The time to act is now.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN RIGHTS ARE NOT SIMPLY EMBODIED IN THE SACRED SECOND AMENDMENT. AMERICANS HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS TOO.

GUN RIGHTS ACTUALLY TRANSCEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT; AN AMERICAN’S FIREARMS ARE HIS SACRED PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND ONE’S RIGHT IN ONE’S SACRED PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED EITHER.

Gun collections are private property. This may seem obvious to you. After all the concept of a private property right is deeply embedded in American culture. It is deeply embedded in America’s economic traditions. And it is deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of Americans. The right to own and possess private property is as fundamental a right in this Country as is the freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and as the freedom to keep and bear arms is under the Second Amendment.Unfortunately, New York law doesn't really treat guns as private property. But, then, New York law views gun possession as a privilege rather than as an inalienable right. So, it should come as no surprise that guns are treated less as private property and more like rental property. We say this because strict limitations are placed on New York residents' ability to transfer their firearms, especially apropos of transfers  of guns or gun collections to heirs. If one's right of enjoyment in and to one's private property were truly honored as a right, then no express or tacit limitation would be placed on one's full enjoyment of that private property. That enjoyment includes the right to dispose of the private property as one wishes, to those whom one wishes to give that property, assuming one wishes to dispose of his or her firearms at all. A person should not be required to dispose of his firearms or firearms' collection if those firearms or collection of firearms are truly private property. Nonetheless, New York Statute tells a person not only when or that he or she must dispose of a gun or collection of guns, but also how a disposal of guns or of an entire gun collection must take place. And the language of gun transfers is laid out not at all succinctly, clearly, and plainly, as one might reasonably expect, but in lengthy, agonizing, and often incoherent detail.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ENTAILS THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS AS ONE'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The concept of private property rights underlies and precedes the imperative of the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Further, the fundamental right of Americans to own, possess, and enjoy their private property is embraced in the language of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as specifically applied to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution secure for American gun owners the right to enjoy the liberties the Founders of our Republic intended for them as for all Americans. Present New York law denigrates the rights and protections and liberties of New York gun owners.Many New York residents have firearms’ collections worth many tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars – perhaps millions of dollars. The fair market value of these firearms’ collections is placed in jeopardy by specific language of the NY Safe Act, and in the language of the Penal Code of New York, and, by implication, in other Rules and Regulations of New York. In that regard it is not sound to argue that New York law provides firearms owners with mechanisms through which they can freely transfer, or sell, or otherwise dispose of their firearms to appropriate parties within the State or outside it. For the language of New York law is coercive. New York law often requires a gun owner to sell, transfer, or dispose of a particular gun or an entire gun collection when he doesn’t want to and prohibits him from bequeathing his gun collection to those whom he does want to bequeath his gun collection to. And he obtains little or no monetary compensation for that gun collection. Such coercion is antithetical to free market practices and turns the very notion of a free market on its head.Oddly, Governor Cuomo doesn’t address how a property interest in a firearms’ collection might be secured. We know this to be true as we have checked out the Governor’s website. You can check it out for yourself. This is the link: http://programs.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-owners.The Governor’s website provides absolutely no information or guidance for New York gun owners who seek to bequeath a gun collection to their next of kin. Doesn’t Governor Cuomo believe this matter to be important? If that is the case, clearly, tens of thousands of law-abiding New York gun owners would disagree with the Governor. They believe this to be a matter of utmost importance. Many of our readers have expressed considerable bewilderment over the matter of transferring gun collections to their heirs, and they have expressed substantial confusion as to the specific manner of transferring gun collections to their heirs.The testator owner of an expensive gun collection who wishes to bequeath a gun collection to his heirs should not be subject to impediments. But he is. New York law takes his expensive gun collection away from him. It takes his private property away from him without justly compensating him for it. And it deprives the New York gun owner of his expensive firearms collection, his private property, in complete derogation of the precepts laid out in the United States Constitution.In fact the taking of a New York resident’s gun collection without just compensation is not only in contradistinction to the United States Constitution; such taking is in derogation of the New York State Constitution, too.NY CLS Const Art I, § 7(a) says, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” A person’s gun collection is his private property and the State essentially takes it from the owner and prospective heirs without just compensation. And, what public use is attendant to this “taking” of the firearms’ collection? Is the public use merely that a police department may, unbeknownst to the gun owner’s heirs, and, in fact, contrary even to the laws of New York, make use of the gun collection sans compensation to the owner’s heirs? Is the public use merely and incoherently that some of the firearms or the entirety of it will be destroyed by the police official and, so, the decedent’s heirs wind up with zero compensation for the firearms? The taking of private property without just compensation is also inconsistent with NY CLS Const Art I, § 11 which sets forth in pertinent part, “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. By failing to safeguard the monetary value of a New York resident’s gun collection, through the taking of it without just compensation, New York clearly and categorically denies to gun owners the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled.The Bottom line:New York Statute altogether ignores the precepts implicit in the United States Constitution and in New York’s own State Constitution. New York’s governments operate in complete derogation of and, in fact, in unconscionable defiance to the dictates of both. Whether New York residents own firearms or not, they must wake up to the monstrous destruction of sacred rights and liberties, lest they lose all rights and liberties. [separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 3: THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL’S OPINION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

SUB-SUBPART 1: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICA TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

Lost in the chorus of sloganeering over immigration is any discussion of the legality of Obama’s executive order, granting amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. Obama claims that a legal basis for his executive order exists. But what is it? Does Obama tell us? Curiously, when Obama talks, he glosses quickly over critical points he doesn’t want the public to focus on. And that’s true of his intention to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.Obama happened to mention, in passing, that the Office of Legal Counsel told him he has the legal authority to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. And the mainstream media (MSM), quick to echo the President’s sentiments, is slow to question the accuracy of the President’s assertions and the sincerity of his motives. The MSM simply takes Obama at his word. In so doing, the MSM becomes merely a toady for the President, and, as such, utterly fails to serve the public interest. Neither Obama nor the mainstream media troubles to tell the American People what the Office of Legal Counsel actually said. Obama, an attorney himself and purported Constitutional law expert doesn’t want to talk about the law. Rather, Obama talks incessantly about morality. Obama says granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is the right thing to do. Some Americans might disagree with Obama’s notions of morality. But, whether you agree with Obama’s brand of morality or not is beside the point. What we are concerned with here is law, not one person’s notions of morality.So, let us consider what the Office of Legal Counsel actually says. Let us consider the purported legal authority of the Chief Executive to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.We begin with a simple truth: letting millions of people remain in this Country because it would be nice for us to do so – individuals, who had no business being in this Country in the first place – isn’t a tenable basis for letting them remain here.Keep in mind, at the outset of this discussion and analysis, three critical points.The first critical point is that the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is just that: an opinion. The opinion does not have the force of law because the opinion is not handed down by a court of law after an adversarial proceeding. Still, the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel has more import than dubious, simplistic, bombastic, moralistic pronouncements by Obama.  For, the opinion sets the stage for the Chief Executive’s arguments in Court in the event Republicans in Congress ever demonstrate the courage to throw down the gauntlet. At the moment Congressional Republicans are merely huffing and puffing smoke. And Obama suspects Congressional Republicans don’t have the backbone to challenge him on illegal immigration.The second critical point is that our Founders gave considerable thought  to the matter of naturalization and understood the singular importance of it by explicitly referring to it in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders made clear that Congress, alone, has the power to create rules for naturalization. No other Branch of Government has such power. Yet Obama seeks to assume that power unto himself, as Chief Executive.The third critical point is this: the laws our Nation adopts for those who are to become citizens have a decisive impact on what this Nation is; what this Nation may become; how successful this Nation shall be. We ignore our own laws at our peril. And, we undermine the strength of our citizenry by admitting, ultimately, as new citizens of our Nation, the worst among people – those who would dare to cross our borders illegally. For how can such people claim to be law-abiding, honorable individuals, who break the first of our laws, crossing our borders illegally – and then daring to claim what they are not: responsible individuals, respectful of our Nation’s laws – those who come to this Nation under cloak of darkness -- their very presence here, a lie?  The opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is extraordinarily long and detailed. The person who drafted the report, Karl R. Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, talks about a lot of things, but one thing he doesn’t talk about is morality. There isn’t one word about it in the entire length and breadth of the report. And that makes sense. That is as it should be. For, the issue of amnesty raises a legal issue, not a moral one. So, Obama’s rhetorical utterances to the Public are irrelevant. What is relevant – the only thing that is relevant – is whether Obama has the legal authority to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Once again, the Constitution certainly doesn’t give him that power. That power resides only with Congress.Now, the Office of Legal Counsel doesn’t suggest that the authority to enact laws governing naturalization and citizenship reside in the Office of the Chief Executive. Clearly, it does not. Rather, what the Office of Legal Counsel seems to opine, at least according to Obama’s terse and tacit assertion about it, is that Obama’s executive action, granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, does not rise to the level of law-making. For, if it did, Obama’s action would definitely lie beyond his authority as Chief Executive. But, if Obama’s executive action is no more than an exercise of administrative discretion, then such action would fall within his legal purview. So, which is it? On scrutiny of the opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel actually equivocates on this very point. But Obama goes his merry way, claiming his power to act unilaterally on illegal immigration, in the bold unprecedented manner he wants and does, is clear and unequivocal. And there's the rub. Obama is dead wrong. And that, perhaps, explains why Obama says next to nothing about the law to the American public and all too much about morality.Obama is less a competent leader of a nation and more an able stage magician. He deliberately, cleverly, and perniciously, directs the public's attention away from what is important, namely the laws of immigration and a Chief Executive's duties under the U.S.  Constitution, and toward something totally irrelevant, an odd sermon on morality as he or his enablers define it. Thus, he completes his conjuring trick.Let’s take a look at the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel.Two specific questions are raised: (1) whether, given limited resources, it is legally permissible for the President to prioritize the illegal aliens the DHS first gets rid of; and (2) whether it is permissible for DHS to give temporary relief from removal to certain illegal aliens who are the parents of children who are present in the U.S.  Those are the two questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. Those are the only questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. But what were Counsel’s  answers?In providing answers to the President, the Office of Legal Counsel first looked at the impetus for the questions.  The Office acknowledged that 11.3 million illegal aliens have taken up residence in this Country and that the DHS only has resources sufficient to remove 400,000 of them each year. So, in the absence of additional resources DHS has to prioritize what illegal aliens it rids the Country of. And the legal questions, especially, the first one, go to the issue of prioritization.The President asks the Office whether he can decide, irrespective of Congress, who among the illegal aliens can stay here, at least for a while, although, in fact, indefinitely, and who among them must be removed immediately. The crux of the first issue is: how far does Executive discretion extend? We will explore this question in depth in the next installment. In a subsequent post we will deal with the second of the two questions, pertaining to temporary relief for a specific class of illegal aliens.One further point to ponder:In dealing with immigration here, understand, no one is seriously contesting the propriety of immigration proper. After all, we are a Nation of immigrants. What we are looking at here is whether people who entered our Country illegally, with impunity, should be forgiven their transgression, and allowed to remain. In the context of the desire of millions of illegal immigrants to remain this Country, we must remember that many millions of individuals throughout the world desire to become American citizens. And the vast majority of those wishing to become American citizens do respect our laws. They wait their turn. They wait patiently to become citizens in accordance with the laws of naturalization Congress has enacted.To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is to denigrate those who respect and honor our laws. To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is, as well, to undercut the rule of law. It is to denigrate our parents and grandparents and great grandparents – individuals who came to this Country through legal channels; individuals who sought to learn the English language; individuals who sought to adopt American culture, and customs, and traditions, rather than to force America to adopt theirs. Those who come to our shores in the dark of night, rather than in the light of day, do not concern themselves about our laws, our culture, our customs, our traditions, our history, our language. Is that not all too obvious?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OF BOTTLECAPS AND TOY GUNS: CITY OF CLEVELAND “BUYBACK” PROGRAM OF “FAKE GUNS” TAKES "DANGEROUS TOYS" OFF STREET

TO BEGIN, A TRUE STORY:

The story you are about to read is a true one. The name of the perpetrator has been retained to castigate the guilty.Once when the author of this post was the ripe old age of 4 years old, he had a “run-in” with the police. This is what happened:My friend and I were waiting one day, outside our apartment on Superior Road, in Cleveland Heights, Ohio for the station wagon to pick us up and take us to nursery school, as it did every weekday. In those days, back in the 50s – which gives you some idea how old I am now – mothers did not wait with their children on a corner of the street for the school bus or school van. Sure, there were sexual predators back then as there are now but, apparently, they did not exist in the numbers we have today. And the mainstream news media did not drone on endlessly about such things, unlike  today, to secure readership through unapologetic sensationalism. Anyway, as my friend and I were waiting for the nursery school wagon to take us to school, I got the bright idea of going to the park, down the street, to have some fun. It would only be a few minutes. School could wait. My friend agreed, and we walked toward the park, about one-quarter of a mile away. A long, hard-packed dirt footpath sloped down to the park. Once at the park, we noticed “tons” of shiny bottle caps on the ground by the park benches. These were gems to us. We began to fill our pockets full of bottle caps. Soon mine were swollen with caps. The sky-blue and gold Anchor steam beer bottle caps particularly attracted me. As might be expected to happen with young boys, my friend and I lost all track of time.In retrospect, as I think about it, at least one-half hour must have passed while we were in the park. We can only surmise what had occurred on the street above us as the driver of the nursery school wagon saw no one at a corner where two very young boys were supposed to be. The driver must have notified the mothers that we were absent. And the mothers immediately notified the police. As I was walking up the path, from the park to the street above, I noticed a police station wagon pulling up into the park. My friend lagged behind me and he was still in the park when the car arrived. I often wonder what road the police had taken that enabled them to get into the park as I was only aware of one entrance into the park, namely, the footpath we took.A police officer emerged from the car and pulled my friend into the backseat. The officer saw me on the path and yelled, angrily, for me to come down. What should I do? I thought for a second, “it’s okay; I’m on my way home now. I’ll meet you guys there.” But, I knew better. When a man in uniform with a badge, and a gun, and authority tells you to do something, you don’t ignore him; you certainly don’t argue with him, or disparage him; you don’t wave a gun or a toy gun at him, or a knife, or a hammer, or a baseball bat; and you don’t throw bottle caps at him. You obey him quickly and to the letter. I did so. I too was pulled into the backseat of the car. I saw two officers in the front seat of the car. My friend and I said nothing either to the officers or to each other. We were a trifle frightened to be sure, but also a bit bewildered. What was the big deal? One of the officers made a call. I felt, “oh, boy; we are in for it now.” When the police car drove up to the apartment, both our mothers were on the curb, waiting for us, mildly hysterical. The nursery school wagon was at the curb too, the driver outside the vehicle.We didn’t go to nursery school that day. Upstairs in the apartment, I unloaded “my haul” onto the kitchen table. I was given a “talking to.” And that was that. Thereafter, I never strolled away alone to the park. I dutifully waited for the nursery school wagon to take me to school. I learned my lesson very well and that was a good thing.  For, never again did I find myself in the backseat of a police car.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

When a police officer orders you to do something, you do it; time enough to fight the legitimacy of the officer’s behavior in a court of law. Now, I was 4 years old when I had my “run-in” with the law and I had enough sense to recognize authority and to obey a police officer’s command. Tamir Rice –  who was 12 years old and who, arguably, looked much older at 5’7” and 195 pounds, according to news accounts  – was three times my age, and he disobeyed a command that should have been clear enough to understand and important enough to obey whether one is an adult, a teenager, a pre-teen, or a child. He didn’t. He died. A mother has lost her son. The son has lost his future. And a police officer may have lost his career and, certainly, forever after, his peace of mind.

ONE ANSWER: GET RID OF THE “FAKE GUNS!”

On the front page of the Sunday December 14, 2014 edition of the Plain Dealer, an article appears, titled “120 fake weapons are turned in.” The Plain Dealer has previously written about “real” gun buyback programs which may have political coin, but are a joke and an affront to the American public. Moreover, apropos of the City's novel "toy gun" buyback program, I wish to point out that, when I was a child, we played with “cap guns” that had the heft and appearance of real six-shooters. There were no calls for buybacks of these toy guns back then; there was no lunacy or hysteria on the part of the newspapers calling for gun control (and, now, toy gun control); and there was an absence of moronic behavior on the part of some members of the public when confronted by understandably nervous police officers.So, what has changed and, perhaps, more to the point, why? Is there something in the water we drink, in the food we eat, in the air we breathe?The writer of the December 14^th Plain Dealer front page article quotes Jan Thorpe, executive director of Inner Visions of Cleveland, one of the toy gun buyback sponsors as saying, “‘guns that were once a symbol of death will become a symbol of life because we will crush them and turn the pieces into some sort of mosaic.’” How smug.  Thorpe is talking about toys here, not guns, merely toys in the shape of guns. Boys play with toy guns. I played with toy guns in my youth. My neighborhood friends and I played soldier, and cops and robbers, and cowboys and Indians. This was normal, this was decent. This was our rite of passage as American boys who would one day be men. This is in the natural order of things.What has changed? I will tell you: lack of belief in and trust in the indomitability of the human spirit; the loss of personal accountability and responsibility; governmental, indeed, societal mistrust of the individual; and loss of faith in one’s own true self.Wake up America! The salient problem with our Country is not the presence of guns, or toy guns, or any other toy or implement. The problem is lack of faith and trust in one’s own abilities and in one’s own sanctity. Giving up this or that implement – and now toy – because a newspaper tells us that this is the sane thing to do shows, rather, how insanity in the guise of sanity has permeated our society and is slowly draining the lifeblood out of each and every one of us.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour).

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: OBAMA GRANTS AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. WILL HE GRANT THEM FULL CITIZENSHIP TOMORROW?

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 2: PRESIDENT OBAMA GRANTS AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TODAY; WILL HE GRANT THEM FULL CITIZENSHIP TOMORROW?

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of DHS, testified before the House Homeland Security Committee. What prompted the Congressional Hearing is well known. President Obama had unilaterally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He had threatened to do so, after the 2014 midterm elections. And immediately following the midterm elections, Obama did in fact order DHS to suspend deportation proceedings on 5 million illegal immigrants on U.S. soil. In so doing, he has acted contrary to the will of Congress. Congressional Republicans insist that Obama explain his actions.Over 11 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the U.S. Potentially all of these illegal immigrants are subject to deportation, pursuant to present immigration law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with their removal. Yet, President Obama has called for an immediate halt to deportation of roughly half of them.At Tuesday’s Hearing, Representative Michael McCall, R-Texas, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, expressed outrage at the Obama Administration’s actions that effectively bypass Congress. Upon calling the Committee Meeting to Order McCall wasted no time asserting that the President’s actions “undermine our Constitution and threaten our Democracy.”Representative Bill Keating, D-Massachusetts, asked Secretary Johnson, pointedly, whether the President’s actions amount to granting amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants? Johnson replied that the current situation does amount to amnesty.But, what does ‘amnesty’ mean? Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), defines ‘amnesty’ as “a pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not been convicted.” Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) also says that, “unlike an ordinary pardon, amnesty is usually addressed to crimes against State authority – that is, to political offenses with respect to which forgiveness is deemed more expedient for the public welfare than prosecution and punishment. Amnesty is usually general, addressed to classes or even communities.” The President, not Congress, has granted amnesty to literally millions of illegal immigrants. Congress can do so. The President cannot. See previous Article on immigration. The President does so anyway. The unstated basis for the President’s unilateral action is expediency and public welfare. But, illegally crossing U.S. borders in the first instance or re-entering the U.S.  illegally, once again, after deportation, are both criminal offenses under present U.S. immigration law.Moreover, we may rightly ask whether presumed “expediency” is a sound basis for the President’s actions when such actions disrupt the rule of law and undercut the U.S. Constitution. And we may well ask whose public welfare the President has in mind by granting amnesty. Is he not less concerned for the welfare of American citizens and more concerned for the welfare of millions of immigrants who crossed our Nation’s borders illegally in obvious defiance of our Nation’s immigration laws? It would seem so!

DOES THE PRESIDENT’S GRANT OF AMNESTY TO FIVE MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CONFER CITIZENSHIP ON THOSE FIVE MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

This question is singularly important and has been given scant, if any, attention in the face of the President’s grant of amnesty. But, the American public should consider the ramifications of the President's grant of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. For, where amnesty is awarded to those so undeserving of it, will they not flex their muscles and, in the future, request – indeed, at some point demand – full citizenship, with all that the word, ‘citizenship’ entails?To be sure, granting amnesty does not ipso facto confer citizenship. But, might not the President’s actions operate as a step toward full citizenship for these five million illegal immigrants? Is that not the tacit assumption behind the President’s unilateral actions?

WHO IS A CITIZEN?

To understand who is a citizen we must first get a handle on what the word ‘citizen’ means? Once again, let us turn to the legal definition of ‘citizen.’ Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines the word ‘citizen’ as “a person who, by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the political community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections.”The paramount question before us, aside from the obvious pertinent ones -- directed to the purported legal basis for the President's actions, granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and the political rationale for granting amnesty to so many individuals who crossed our borders illegally, in contradistinction to the laws of naturalization enacted by Congress -- is whether the President’s unilateral actions create a defacto class of citizens. What we need to ask is: what legal rights will accrue to these five million illegal immigrants through the President’s unprecedented act of amnesty? And, having arrived here illegally, we may also wish to consider to whom these people owe their allegiance? Do they owe allegiance to the U.S. or to their native Countries? And, if they are not at present entitled to all the rights and protections of bona fide American citizens, what rights and protections, if any, are they entitled to? And, if they are in fact entitled to the same rights and protections as those enjoyed by American citizens, are they not, then, essentially American citizens?Even if the President denies he has created or intends to create a quasi-class of citizens through the grant of amnesty to five million illegal immigrants, might not these five million illegal immigrants sue for full rights and protections somewhere down the road if they do not in fact enjoy all rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution by virtue of the President’s grant of amnesty to them?Can we not imagine a slew of civil rights lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of, these five million illegal immigrants at some point in the future? Would these illegal immigrants not claim that their rights under the Constitution must be met? As incongruous as that may sound at the moment, we should reflect on the true implications of the President’s unsound actions in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

WHAT LIES IN STORE FOR AMERICANS?

Clearly, the President’s actions have opened a Pandora’s Box of troubles for Americans. Whatever complications exist over the mere presence of millions of illegal immigrants in this Country, such complications pale in comparison to what lies ahead for Americans as a result of Obama’s unlawful actions granting amnesty to five million illegal immigrants in the first place.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: USURPATION OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS; OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 1: OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF CONGRESS?

Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth clearly, concisely and categorically: “all legislative Powers . . . shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Among those legislative Powers, Article 1, Section 8 says, “the Congress shall have Power to establish . . . a uniform rule of Naturalization.”  The term ‘naturalization’ means ‘immigration’ and the power to regulate immigration implies the power to vest citizenship in a person. This means that Congress has authority to enact federal legislation establishing the rules for naturalization and the rules for conferring citizenship. But, does this mean the President also has power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization?Unless specific language in the Constitution says otherwise, we must infer that Congress alone has control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship. And the Constitution does not confer control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship on any Branch of Government, other than the Legislative Branch: Congress. So, then,

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT?

Article 2, Section 1 says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article 2, Section 3 mandates that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . . .” This means that the President has the singular duty to make sure the laws of Congress are adhered to. Nothing in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution suggests the President shall share law making functions with Congress. Yet, President Obama says he can do this.We must assume that President Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and Constitutional Law Professor, has a firm grasp of the Constitution of the United States. He must know that Congress, alone, and not the President, has power to establish a uniform law of Naturalization. Yet Obama in defiance of Congress has granted, through Executive fiat, amnesty for five million illegal aliens. By that act Obama has usurped a Power that resides solely in Congress. Does that usurpation of power constitute an impeachable offense? Article 2, Section 4 makes clear that, “the President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Executive Office usurpation of the Powers of Congress certainly falls into the domain of impeachable offenses.

THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Contrary to Obama’s remarks about the purported benefits illegal immigrants bring to this Country, the cost to Americans is astronomical. “By some estimates, illegal immigration costs the United States $45 billion a year. Not only does society bear the financial costs of illegal immigration, but it is also burdened with the loss of jobs and a decrease in the average household income. The labor market is more than willing to hire illegal immigrants under the table to avoid paying American workers a higher wage. Many illegal immigrants, in turn, accept payment below the federal minimum wage. Consequently, American workers are forced out of their jobs and are unable to locate jobs elsewhere because the only jobs they are qualified for are being taken by illegal immigrants.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation On Postsecondary Education Benefits For Illegal Immigrants," Rebecca Ness Rhymer,” 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).Moreover, most Americans oppose amnesty for undocumented workers. “Americans also feel the financial burden of illegal immigration in other areas, such as social security, criminal justice programs, housing, public education, and health care. With illegal immigration posing a threat to workers and their families, it is understandable that two-thirds of Americans oppose measures designed to make it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the borders in hopes of securing United States citizenship. In 1986, the federal government, intending to curb illegal immigration, implemented a program which granted amnesty to illegal immigrants already within United States borders and increased measures to block further illegal entry. The program sanctioned employers whose hiring of illegal immigrants spread the use of ‘forgery-proof’ residency documents. After 3.1 million illegal immigrants received amnesty, subsequent measures to enforce the program failed. The result did little to curb illegal immigration.” Id.Notwithstanding Americans’ opposition to amnesty programs for illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the lack of Congressional authorization to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the failure of past Congressional amnesty programs, Obama has, nonetheless, decided, unilaterally, and contrary to the authority of the Chief Executive to do so under our Constitution, to give amnesty to millions of these people anyway.

HOW OBAMA HAS REWRITTEN THE UNIFORM LAWS OF NATURALIZATION AND VESTING OF CITIZENSHIP

To understand how Obama has rewritten the uniform laws of naturalization and the vesting of citizenship we need to look at a couple of the Naturalization laws that Congress has enacted in prior years.The idea of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is nothing new, but Congress alone has authority to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants if it chooses to do so, not the President. While naturalization programs go back to the dawn of the Republic, Congress has most recently experimented with amnesty during the last quarter of the Twentieth Century. This was a time – continuing to the present moment – when millions of aliens have crossed and are continuing to cross the Nation’s borders illegally. Amnesty for illegal aliens took the form of providing temporary asylum for some illegal aliens. The program failed miserably as it simply encouraged rather than discouraged ever more illegal entry into the Country.  So, subsequent acts of Congress were directed to denying amnesty to undocumented aliens.Let’s take a look at the two most recent immigration programs.The first such fairly modern program was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This Act did in fact grant temporary amnesty to certain qualifying illegal immigrants, did in fact grant permanent residency for certain qualifying agricultural workers, and did impose legal penalties on employers who hired undocumented workers. The program also funded border patrol in the hope of preventing more undocumented workers from venturing onto U.S. soil. See, generally, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012). IRCA failed because the INS was unable to satisfactorily enforce the Act. Id.See also, “NOTE: The Political Discourse of Amnesty in Immigration Policy,” Bryn Siegel, 41 Akron L.R. (2008). “IRCA is widely recognized as a failed attempt to regulate undocumented immigration. The failure of IRCA to control illegal immigration now stands as the central hurdle in any campaign for a legalization statute.  Known commonly as the ‘first amnesty,’ IRCA has a pervasive legacy. Following IRCA, illegal immigration continued to rise and many undocumented immigrants in the United States remained without legal status when the opportunity to apply expired.  The critical failure of IRCA in terms of inspiring sympathetic supporters was the relative ease of the legalization process.”So, Congress decided to end leniency toward illegal aliens.Congress enacted a new immigration program: the “Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996” (IIRIRA). Congress enacted the 1996 program, IIRIRA, to correct problems inherent in the Act of 1986, IRCA. The new program, IIRIRA, imposed stricter penalties on immigrants remaining in the U.S. after expiration of their authorized period of stay. And the 1996 Act restricted deportees from reentering the U.S. for several years after deportation. Id. The stricter penalties were designed to discourage unauthorized immigration. “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).The 1996 IIRIRA program, together with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), “imposed a number of restrictions on illegal immigrants’ in the United States. Specifically, Congress created this legislation to reduce the increasing availability of public benefits to illegal immigrants, which serve as incentives for keeping their illegal status.  Not only did the PRWORA and the IIRIRA restrict illegal immigrants’ access to federal public benefits, such as social security and health care, but they also restricted access to state and local benefits, including the limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment for higher education purposes.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation on Postsecondary Education Benefits for Illegal Immigrants,” Rebecca Ness Rhymer, 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).

UNDER PRESENT LAW HOW MAY A PERSON BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN?

“There are currently four ways to become a naturalized U.S. citizen: (1) permanent U.S. residency for five years, (2) permanent U.S. residency for three years and a spouse who is a U.S. citizen, (3) serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, or (4) being a child of a U.S. citizen. The majority of immigrants become a naturalized U.S. citizen through permanent residence by obtaining a "Green Card." A Green Card can be obtained through family, employment, asylee or refugee status, and other special programs that apply to a very small class of immigrants. In order to obtain a Green Card, you must first acquire a visa in order to enter the United States. In 2010, there were 482,052 immigrant visas issued.” See, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).Under present immigration law, enacted by Congress, amnesty for illegal immigrants doesn't exist. A person who enters the U.S. in the hope of becoming a U.S. citizen must first obtain a visa. Id. That means a person must enter the U.S. legally. Visas are not issued to individuals who cross a U.S. border illegally.

WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT THE “DREAM ACT.” DOESN’T THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDE AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS?

The answer is, “no,” because it was never enacted. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM ACT) which is trumped up in the news – “a law that would have provided a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants living in the United States who succeed academically and/or through service in the United States military” – failed. See “The State of the Ordinary Family: A Symposium: Article: The Impact of Recessionary Politics on Latino-American and Immigrant Families: SCHIP Success and DREAM Act Failure," Mariela Oliveras, 55 How. L.J. 359 (Winter, 2012).The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM Act) might be considered a revamped Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) that had failed decades ago. Democrats in Congress pushed for it. Understandably, Congressional Republicans pushed back. As IRCA had failed abysmally, Congressional Republicans, justifiably, saw nothing to warrant resurrecting it in the form of the so-called "DREAM Act."

THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDED THE IMPETUS FOR OBAMA TO UNILATERALLY GRANT AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Frustrated that Congress wouldn’t enact the DREAM Act, Obama decided to take action without Congress -- threatening to do so only after the Midterm elections, hoping that Democrats would retain control of the U.S. Senate. That didn't happen. Realizing that the Dream Act -- or some form of it -- wouldn't be enacted anytime soon, if ever, Obama decided to act on his threat.Curiously, Obama previously admitted, correctly, that he cannot legislate where Congress fails to do so. He now argues, inconsistently, that Executive amnesty for millions of undocumented aliens falls within his purview as Chief Executive. Supporters of Obama’s action may call it “administrative expediency.” But Obama’s action amounts to an Executive Order of clemency for millions of undocumented aliens who should be deported. In effect the Order is an unlawful legislative act on the part of the Executive. It is not a legitimate administrative action. Rather, Obama's Order is designed to thwart immigration law.What Obama’s immigration Order says is that illegal immigrants won’t be deported if they don’t pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security. What Obama's immigration Order means is that immigration officials are prohibited from doing their job -- deporting illegal aliens. Obama believes that he has the legal authority to do this because immigration officials work for the Executive, not Congress, and because he believes that telling immigration officials not to do their job, deporting illegals, is somehow different than telling Congress straightforwardly that he won't faithfully execute immigration law -- that he won't, then, give any thought to the intent of Congress.

HOW DOES DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WORK AND IN WHAT MANNER DOES OBAMA BELIEVE HE CAN LEGALLY OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY?

Obama believes he can legally get around what, to his mind, is an uncooperative Congress. Obama argues he isn't willfully disobeying Congressional authority because his immigration order only goes to the matter of deportation, not amnesty. And deportation authority, unlike the matter of granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, is an Executive function. So Obama is trying to make the case that he isn’t really giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at all. He is simply not enforcing deportation. Indeed, “the most common form of protection {for illegal immigrants} has been the non-enforcement of deportation rather than the grant of a specific temporary status.” See, "ARTICLE: Temporary Protection: Towards a New Regional and Domestic Framework," Susan Martin, Andy Schoenholtz, and Deborah Waller Meyers 12 Geo. Immigration L.J. 543 (Summer, 1998).This is just equivocation. Whether Obama, on his own, were actively to bestow amnesty on millions of illegal immigrants (in effect, wrongly invoking Executive clemency for illegal immigrants by implicitly rewriting present immigration law) or simply were to order his  immigration officials to refrain from enforcing deportation rules, Obama is telling illegal immigrants that they can stay in the United States. In fact Obama has ordered immigration officials to stop deporting millions of illegal immigrants whom Congress has dictated, through present immigration law, must be deported. Obama is thus telling millions of illegal immigrants that  they need not fear deportation because immigration officials will not deport them, as immigration officials have been ordered by Obama not to deport them. However one chooses to describe Obama's action here, Obama has clearly thwarted the will of Congress. That is obviously Obama's intention and that is certainly what he has done. That will certainly make millions of illegal immigrants happy. But whom does Obama, as President of the United States, represent: illegal immigrants or bona fide American citizens? And, whose welfare is Obama, as President of the United States, supposed to be concerned with: the welfare of illegal immigrants or the welfare of bona fide American citizens? It appears that Obama is concerned more for the welfare of  people who ought not remain in this Country, who should never have come to the Country in the manner they did -- in defiance of our laws, exhibiting contempt for our People -- and he seems concerned less for the welfare of bona fide American citizens. Illegal immigrants are not honest, law-abiding people. Their very presence here is a testament to their disrespect for our laws, our culture, our citizenry. Obama caters to that!Moreover, through his actions, Obama hasn't merely condoned illegal immigration, he has actively encouraged it. And he is inviting more of the same.Americans will see millions of illegal immigrants flooding across our borders in the future, many more from Mexico, from Countries of Central America, from Countries of South America, and from Countries around the world. This is just what Congress -- Congressional Republicans at least -- sought to prevent enactment of IIRIRA in 1996.Obama's action undermines America's immigration laws and constitutes a direct challenge to the authority and power of Congress, under the U.S. Constitution, to establish the rules of Naturalization and Citizenship for all Americans. And, what does Obama's action say to foreigners who have waited for years to become American citizens, through proper legal channels, through adherence to the rule of law? What does Obama's action say to the  millions of Americans whose grandparents and great grandparents came to this Country legally through Ellis Island? How much respect can a person have for a Country's rule of law when that person has already broken the Laws of the Land through illegal entry into this Country? Such a person doesn't care. And Obama doesn't care either.Obama says his policy will not prevent the deportation of  "criminals." That is an incongruous remark since all illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. The phrases, 'illegal entry' and 'illegal reentry,' denote 'crimes' under U.S. immigration law. For a historical perspective on this, see, generally, "Article, Re-thinking Illegal Entry and Reentry," Doug Keller, 44 Loyola U. Chi. 65 (Fall 2012)What Obama is doing, essentially, is pushing the DREAM Act through by Executive Action/Executive fiat since Democrats in Congress were unsuccessful in their efforts to enact the DREAM Act. Indeed, his action, tying the hands of immigration officials so they aren't permitted to do their job, deporting millions of illegal immigrants, extends the Dream Act well beyond what even the Dream Act was designed to do if Congress had enacted it.

OBAMA HAS NOT ACTED ALONE

To Argue Obama has acted alone in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is not precisely true. Congressional Democrats encouraged the President to act and, in so doing, they, too, have acted irresponsibly. Moreover, these elected officials have undermined their own authority. They have undermined the authority and power of  Congress as an independent Branch of Government -- a Branch critical to the operations of and well-being of the Republic. Their action constitutes a betrayal to the American public they were elected to serve.Congressional Democrats complicity in the President's action is clearly in evidence. Consider: “In April 2011, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and twenty-one other Democratic senators published a letter they sent to President Barack Obama urging him to use executive discretion and authority to stop deportations and removals of undocumented young people-who grew up in the United States or have been residing in the United States for many years-who would have benefitted from the DREAM Act.” See, “Symposium: Noncitizen Participation In The American Polity: Dreams Deferred: Deferred Action, Prosecutorial Discretion, And The Vexing Cases(s) Of Dream Act Students, Michael A. Olivas, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights J. 463 (December, 2012).“The Obama Administration has apparently determined that any forms of immigration reform will have to be modest, and in the nature of non-legislative, adjudicatory, administrative review and discretionary deferred action.” Id.Deportation of aliens is an Executive function to be sure. But, that does not mean the Chief Executive – the President – can take it upon himself unilaterally to suspend deportation of millions of illegal aliens. That is an abuse of Executive discretion because deportation is a tool that Congress uses to effectuate the laws it has enacted. It is not a device to be used by the Chief Executive to thwart the will of Congress.Still, Congressional Democrats persevered in their own irresponsible actions. Senator Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer wrote a personal letter to then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, attempting to pressure her to exclude millions of illegal aliens from deportation. But, Napolitano, a lawyer herself, responded with a letter of her own, barely containing her anger, “insisting that no category of Prosecutorial Discretion (PD) would be employed for groups of individuals: ‘I am not going to stand here and say that there are whole categories that we will, by executive fiat, exempt from the current immigration system, as sympathetic as we feel towards them.’” Id. Yet, three years later, we find Obama compelling Executive departments and Agencies to do just that: defying Congressional Mandate by excluding entire categories of individuals – literally millions of them – from deportation.

OBAMA HAS PREVIOUSLY EXPERIMENTED WITH AMNESTY

On June 15, 2012, Obama initiated a new policy, providing temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants who came here as children -- a policy known as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA). "Note, 'You may say I'm a Dreamer, but I'm not the Only One,' a1: Categorical Prosecutorial Discretion and Its Consequences for US Immigration Law," Maria A. Fufidio, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J., 976 (June, 2013).  Opposition to DACA came not only from Republicans in Congress but from State governments and even from agents within the Department of Homeland Security. Id.What does DACA do? DACA "defers removal action for two years and provides individuals with work authorization if they meet other eligibility criteria for eligibility." Id.We now see what DACA really was and where DACA was obviously headed: universal amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. The President's DACA policy was, then, merely a dress rehearsal for his latest initiative. For, where DACA granted temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants, the President has now granted amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. It would not be a stretch to infer from the President's actions, that he intends, ultimately, to bestow amnesty to the 11 million plus illegal immigrants who currently reside on U.S. soil and to the thousands  -- perhaps millions  more -- who are crossing U.S. borders today and who, undoubtedly, will continue to cross U.S. borders and enter our ports, illegally, in the coming weeks, months, and years.

WHERE DOES ALL THIS LEAVE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Not surprisingly, Senate and House Republicans are livid and the American public should sound off too.It may be academic why Obama waited almost three years to thwart the will of Congress. Likely, Obama hoped that Congress would enact the DREAM Act or something like it. Pressured by House and Senate Democrats, and by millions of undocumented aliens who shouldn’t have a voice at all, Obama decided to usurp the authority of Congress. Even now Obama says a Congressional enactment on immigration would override his Executive action. So saying, Obama is admitting he has usurped the authority of Congress. Moreover, immigration legislation already exists. That legislation does not provide for general amnesty. Obama doesn’t like it. Democrats in Congress don’t like it. And eleven million plus illegal aliens don’t like it. But most Americans -- bona fide citizens -- do like it. And it is the law.Obama likes to blurt out slogans. He says the present immigration system is broken. But, is it? What does he mean by the word, 'broken?' Does he mean the system is broken because it doesn't sanctify the presence of "border jumpers" in the U.S.? One might say, just as nonsensically, that our criminal justice system is broken because it preys on individuals who commit crimes.Apparently, illegal immigrants, some members of Congress, and the United States President believe they can, together, thrust their will on the American People, contrary to the import and purport of the United States Constitution and contrary to the authority of Congress, which alone, has power, under the Constitution, to establish the laws of naturalization and citizenship. Hopefully, some members of Congress will remember where their duty rests.

WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The American People must understand that usurpation of the U.S. Constitution – even by those who believe, possibly, they are acting with the best of intentions – undermines the Republic. The Obama Administration is testing the waters by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, contrary to dictates of the present immigration law. But, Obama is testing the waters in ways far beyond the issue of immigration. If Congress fails to take strong measures against the Obama Administration and fails to do so immediately, then precedent will exist for further encroachment upon the Powers of Congress.Would a President dare to argue, for example, the First Amendment, Second Amendment, or Fourth Amendment Rights might be legally curtailed on the ground of a President’s personal convictions? We see an inkling of this -- and in matters of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, more than an inkling -- even now. If a President believes his Office is unassailable and that he, personally, is invincible, then the Rule of Law ceases to exist; the Constitution weakens; the Republic falls.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: THE HISTORY OF POLICING IN AMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION

PART 3: FATHERLAND, MOTHERLAND, HOMELAND: THE ORIGINS OF A POLICE STATE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

SUBPART 3: THE HISTORY OF POLICING IN AMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION

The militarization and federalization of police forces is not a recent occurrence. It isn’t a singular event. And, it isn’t an anomaly. It’s a calculated strategy through which the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Defense (DOD) and Justice (DOJ) on behalf of powerful, secretive, sinister, ruthless forces both within the United States and outside it seek to undermine the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and bring an end to our Republic. Once the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights topples, the other Nine Amendments will fall of their own accord. In the absence of our sacred Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution will have lost a crucial leg upon which the very structure of our free Republic stands. Never, since its inception in the 18^th Century, has the Bill of Rights suffered a more ferocious assault upon its sacred principals than in the 21^st Century – hardly an Age of Enlightenment.

WHAT PROOF EXISTS THAT POWERFUL, SECRETIVE, RUTHLESS FORCES ANTITHETICAL TO OUR FREE REPUBLIC EXIST; THAT THEY HAVE CONSPIRED TO DESTROY OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND, ONCE HAVING ACCOMPLISHED THAT TASK, SEEK TO DISMANTLE OUR SOVEREIGN NATION STATE?

You may have heard of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. The mainstream media (MSM) won’t talk about these groups. The MSM won’t investigate the aims and goals of these groups.  The MSM won’t discuss how these groups work secretly to coordinate foreign and domestic policies; how these groups manipulate public perception; how these groups manufacture lies; how these groups infiltrate the institutions of this Country. The MSM won’t discuss these matters at all, won’t even mention them. The MSM won’t do this because the MSM is an instrument of these groups.Still, the public can obtain an inkling of the machinations of these groups: the strategies they employ to control society: the arsenal of destruction. One strategy is the militarization and federalization of the police forces in this Country.

WHAT PROOF EXISTS THAT POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY REALLY ARE MILITARIZED AND FEDERALIZED OR, AT LEAST, ARE RAPIDLY BECOMING MILITARIZED AND FEDERALIZED?

In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9, 2014, the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, held a public hearing on September 9, 2014. Representatives of DHS, DOD, and Department of Justice (DOJ) offered testimony. Police use of military equipment was the subject of the hearing. The topic of the hearing may seem banal. The import of it isn’t. Apart from “SWAT” teams – the creation and purpose of which raises some interesting issues of its own – why, generally, would rank and file police officers, operating in thousands of police forces across the Country, need military equipment: sniper rifles, night vision goggles, armored vehicles, fully automatic weaponry, military uniforms and military armor?Today, the subject of militarization and federalization of police in American society is viewed alongside discussions of police brutality, race relations, “broken windows” theory,  Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and Fourth Amendment privacy concerns – matters that reflect and encompass policing strategies, theories, philosophies, and topics of recent vintage, extending from the mid-twentieth century, through the first decade of the 21^st – up to this very moment.But, to understand how we got to this point we must grasp the historical role and function of police in American society. For, you shall see, the militarization and federalization of civilian police forces is not simply a matter of discerning changes in police equipment. It is more – much more.

HOW DID WE GET FROM THERE TO HERE?

It may seem a trifling matter, even quaint, to ask this question. After all, every community in America has a police department of some kind and, seemingly, always had a police department. The public accepts concepts such as ‘State police power,’ ‘police departments,’ ‘policing,’ and ‘police officers’ as “givens,” without need for definitive explication or even a cursory explanation.But, if you stop to think about it – really stop to think about it – you begin to realize the need to ask this question and a slew of other questions -- questions the MSM does not ask and does not investigate and, so, does not try to answer.Why do we have police officers and police departments at all? What is their purpose in society? How did they come to be? How did the concept of ‘police power’ come into being?  Does the ‘police power’ reside only in the individual States? Or, does the ‘police power’ also reside with the Federal Government? If that power only resides in the individual States, how did that power come to be transferred to the Federal Government? Was it through subterfuge? Did the individual States willingly sell their “soul” to the Federal Government in exchange for military hardware? To whom do the police agencies of the individual States really answer? What was the role of policing in colonial America? Did the public itself serve, at one time, as “the police?” If so, at what point did policing transform into an independent segment or organ of society and why? What was the original function of policing in American society? What was policing supposed to accomplish? Once policing became a unique profession, whom did the police serve? How did policing evolve? What is the function and role of the police today? Is the primary role of the police today one of protecting the public from transgressors? Or, is the primary role of police one of protecting certain wealthy, powerful segments of the society against the public, where the public is itself deemed, inherently, to be the transgressor or, at least, deemed to be a potential transgressor?

OUR HYPOTHESIS

Policing, ultimately, is about control: control of the masses. And control of the masses is the sine qua non of the “Police State.”But, is this hypothesis true? To test this hypothesis we must take a close look at the history of policing.We begin with a look at policing in Colonial America.

DID POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND POLICE OFFICERS EXIST IN COLONIAL AMERICA?

The answer is, “no.” There were no police departments in the colonies or early States. In fact, there were no professional law enforcement officers. The peace officer, most commonly a constable, was usually a low status ‘freeman’ pressed into a tour of duty for a year. He was not paid a salary; rather, he was a part-time officer who received small fees for performing various services, probably while attempting to maintain his usual occupation. Although constables in some cities might have been loosely organized under a ‘high constable,’ and might have been augmented by a nightwatch, peace officers were not numerous; the usual pattern was one constable for each parish, ward, or similar local jurisdiction. Thus, the constable often depended on the assistance of bystanders to execute an arrest – in fact, the constable’s authority to command the assistance of others may have been the most distinctive attribute of his office. Constables were expected to preserve order by keeping an eye on taverns, controlling drunks, apprehending vagrants, and responding to ‘affrays’ (fights) and other disturbances but they were not otherwise expected to investigate crime. Instead, the mobilization of criminal justice depended almost entirely on private initiation of criminal prosecutions. Except for homicides, which might be inquired into by a coroner’s inquest or grand jury, the initiation of arrests and searches commenced when a crime victim either raised the ‘hue and cry’ or made a sworn complaint. How and how often (if at all) the hue and cry was used in late eighteenth-century America is not well understood, but it appears to have been reserved primarily as a response to ‘fresh’ crimes, especially robbery and escapes.” “Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment,” Thomas Y. Davies, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 547, 621 (December, 1999)In the earliest days of the Republic the duty of policing resided in the public. The public took responsibility for law and order. “The evolution of American policing was a slow and selective process.” “Evolving Strategies: A Historical Examination of Changes in Principle, Authority and Function to Inform Policing,” Julia E. Scott, Police Journal 83 2 (June 2010). The process was slow and selective because the public feared centralized power and control. “The unification of the English colonies as an independent nation in the West brought a greater need for communal security, and heightened the necessity for a governing authority and laws with which to maintain order, than prior to America’s autonomy. Ratification of the United States Constitution offered a well-defined Federal influence, administered through three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, and provided the central authority necessary to administer justice. In the United States, the laws and ‘elaborate machinery’ needed to enforce them had not yet been tested; thus law enforcement was administered in the only manner with which citizens were familiar: the parish-constable system.” Id.The rise of the professional police officer and the rise of centralized police departments – the modern police system – replacing the informal parish-constable system – was a development, oddly enough, owing much to the philosophy of policing in English society. “American policing is generally ascribed to an Englishman, Sir Robert Peel.”“Appointed as the British Home Secretary, Peel introduced the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. The Act was designed to reform the antiquated parish-constable system of policing that had failed to effectively repress the rising incidence of violent and property crime in England.” Peel is considered the father of modern policing. Peel’s philosophy of policing is codified in a set of 26 principles. They are:

1. Absence of crime best improves police efficiency
2. Principle objective is crime prevention
3. Organization must be stable, efficient, military-like
4. Police headquarters centralized
5. Establishment of rank with assigned duties
6. Separation of police management from judiciary
7. Modification of system to meet local needs
8. Creation of a divisional reserve
9. Police records are necessary (to allot divisional strength)
10. Recruits hired on a probationary basis
11. Police applicants to be judged on their merits
12. Police should be even-tempered; a quiet determined manner
13. Each officer will be assigned a number
14. Proper training is the root of police efficiency
15. Strict discipline of officers will ensure high behavioral standards
16. Deployment by shift and beat
17. A “beat card” will be issued to each officer
18. Promotions will be filled from lower-rank officers
19. Good appearance commands respect
20. Distribution of crime news is essential
21. Power of police depends on public approval
22. To maintain public respect police must secure public cooperation and obey laws
23. Public cooperation diminishes proportionately with police use of physical force
24. To preserve public favor, police must demonstrate impartial service for the law
25. To maintain a relation with the public that denotes the police are the public and the public are the police
26. Daily reporting of police activity

As you can see, Peel’s list includes several administrative mechanisms, normative values, and, perhaps most revealing, a military structure.What we have today – the militarization and federalization of police – is not, then, a creature that just happened suddenly and mysteriously. Its seeds were planted over 180 years ago. The fear that Americans have today over the increasing power of police forces in American society echo those of Americans and the English, too, almost two centuries ago.In the next installment we will continue our investigation into the roots of the modern policing and the rise of the Police State.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL’S TAKE ON THE MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS

For the first time in eight years Republicans have taken control of both Houses of Congress. This is no accident. The American public has had enough of Barack Obama. This glib, smooth-talking “used car” salesman can’t convince the public to purchase any more of his wrecks.In the next two years the Republicans can do much to set the Country on a corrective path, paving the way for a Republican in the White House. Through a concerted effort Republicans can rein in the Executive and can make Congress functional.This does not mean the Republicans are required to do everything; but they can’t sit idly by doing nothing, merely arguing that they do much by prohibiting Obama from doing anything. That won’t work anymore. The public won’t stand for that. The public will accept no more excuses. They will no longer buy sugar-coated lies.The results of this mid-term election are a wake-up call to Republicans. If the Republicans sit idly by for the next two years, Americans may very well see another Democrat – a Clinton at that – in the White House. Hillary Clinton feels cheated. She feels that she, not Obama, should have sat in the Oval Office these past six years. But, the puppet masters ordained Obama should rule in her stead. But now the puppet masters have given Clinton the green light. For most Americans the salient concern is that she might just make it to the White House.And don’t doubt for a moment Clinton won’t run for Office; that Clinton won’t be the Democratic Party’s candidate of choice; that Clinton won’t have a real shot at the Presidency in 2016.Although coyly disengaged from the subject of her candidacy, Hillary Clinton is quietly whipping her believers into frenzy. The lemmings support Clinton and no one else. Clinton is chomping at the bit. She lusts for the Oval Office. And many Americans – all too many – want her in the White House. She knows this and is counting on their active support.And what will Obama do in the interim? He will “ruff” a low trump card. His low trump card is his audacity.Any middle school student knows or should know we have a tripartite system of Government, based on a clear separation of powers:The Legislature shall make the laws and the President shall faithfully execute the laws, and the Judiciary, a U.S. Supreme Court, shall interpret the laws.This is the Separation of Powers Doctrine. And it exists for a reason: to preclude usurpation of all powers by one individual or one group. Usurpation of power, whether by one individual or a few, leads invariably to oligarchy or monarchy – tyranny. We are moving inexorably in that direction.Obama is obviously disdainful of Congress and of the U.S. Constitution. He wishes to accumulate legislative powers and executive powers in one Branch of Government: the Executive Branch. Is there proof of this?Consider the touchy subject of immigration. Obama has made plain his intention to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Under our Constitution he can’t do that. He says he’ll do that anyway. What does this mean?The President will do whatever he wants to do but will refrain from doing whatever he wants to do if Congress does what the President wants Congress to do.And, what does that mean?Obama wants immigration reform. So he compels Congress to act to provide him with that reform.Congress, though, doesn’t work at the behest of the Executive Branch. And the Executive Branch cannot legally assume the role of the Legislature unto itself. That constitutes a clear breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and is inconsistent with the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.Understand, Congress need not act on immigration matters at all. Congress determines what laws to enact. Moreover, Congress decides what matters it deals with. These are not prerogatives of the President.The President can’t act as if he were the Legislature. He says that he can. He says he can take action by executive fiat. He says immigration reform is the right thing to do. Obama says lots of things. But his saying this, that, or the other does not make it so.The President has no authority under our Constitution to dictate what laws Congress must pass. The President has no authority under our Constitution to dictate what policy issues Congress must consider. And the President has no authority under our Constitution to make law in lieu of Congress by Executive fiat simply because Congress fails to act.Obama demonstrates an incredible arrogance even to suggest America must have immigration reform. He thrusts his notion of morality on the entire Nation. Obama argues a lawful right to act, if Congress doesn’t. This he bases, ostensibly, on his own ethical belief system. But normative prescriptions don’t, ipso facto, provide a legitimate legal basis for action under the U.S. Constitution. Unilateral action based on a moral claim, however lofty, is, ultimately, clearly, unlawful, and conceivably constitutes an impeachable offense.Although the Republican Congress has much to do, it need not take on work the American public doesn’t want or truly need. It should deal with pressing matters, not unimportant ones. It must avoid being side-tracked by petty impulses and political posturing by the President.Several matters that Congress might reasonably consider spending time on these next two years include, inter alia, these:

• Encouraging economic growth and jobs for Americans
• Reining in the Executive Branch of Government
• Countering Obamacare
• Simplifying the tax code
• Developing coherent foreign policy objectives
• Reducing fraud and waste in Government
• Requiring accountability of the Federal Reserve
• Preventing Executive Branch encroachment on State rights and prerogatives.
• Repairing deteriorating infrastructure
• Protecting America from external biological and ideological threats
• Securing our borders
• Taking steps against foreign nations and foreign transnational conglomerates insinuating themselves into the political, social, economic, financial, and legal affairs of the United States.

In the next two years, Republicans must make headway to protect the fabric of American society. That will help secure our free Republic. That will go a long way to appease a rightfully angry public.Unfortunately, there are already disturbing signs from some centrist Republican Senators that, when dealing with Obama, compromise and conciliation will be the strategies employed. Confrontation is the strategy centrist Senators will reserve for their own Tea Party base. They intend to keep the base in line. Should that occur, these centrist Republicans will certainly tear the GOP wide open, and they may very well hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton in 2016. [separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IS GUN VIOLENCE A MORE PRESSING ISSUE THAN EBOLA? SOME WOULD HAVE YOU THINK SO.

The other day, Alternet, a weblog devoted to progressive and liberal commentary, posted an article by Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration. The article is titled, “Robert Reich: Why I’m Worried About America.” The Article also appears on Reich’s website under a different title, “Getting a Grip on Ebola.” Reich is a prolific writer and orator, and he’s influential in left-wing circles.In his post Reich says he’s not concerned about an Ebola outbreak in this Country. His tacit claim is he’s worried about the public’s response to it. He says, in part:“We have to get a grip. Ebola is not a crisis in the United States. One person has died and two people are infected with his body fluids. The real crisis is the hysteria over Ebola that’s being fed by media outlets seeking sensationalism and politicians posturing for the midterm elections. That hysteria is causing us to lose our heads. . . . More people are killed by stray bullets every day in America than have been killed by Ebola here. . . . Instead, we bicker. For the last eight months, Republicans have been blocking confirmation of a Surgeon General. Why? Because the President’s nominee voiced support for expanded background checks for gun purchases, and the National Rifle Association objected. We’ve got to get our priorities straight.”Reich’s article is straightforward, but simplistic. He’s written it obviously at the behest of the Obama Administration. Reich has considerable credentials. Obama apparently believes that Reich, among other prolific writers and thinkers, will calm the rising tide calling for Government action to stem Ebola in the U.S. To date Obama's reaction toward an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. is disturbingly casual. His administration has done nothing constructive to thwart an Ebola epidemic in this Country. He argues that we must deal with Ebola in Africa, not in the U.S. That's absurd! And Obama, through writers such as Reich, is obviously trying to change the subject -- diverting attention to gun violence. Why is that?The American public shouldn't allow its attention to be diverted to inconsequential matters. The Obama Administration's handling of Ebola in this Country is, to date, abysmal. If Ebola gets out of hand in this Country, one-third of the population can be wiped out. Ebola is an existential threat. Gun violence isn't. It doesn't come close. Let's deal with Ebola!The fault lies squarely with the Obama Administration. Does the American public have reason to fear a full-fledged Ebola outbreak in the U.S.? Yes! Let’s take a look at the fallacies in Reich’s post.

REICH SAYS “EBOLA IS NOT A CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES.”

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘crisis as “a situation that has reached a critical phase.” The implication of Reich’s remark is: we should not fear what has not yet occurred; that such fear is unwarranted. But, the public fears the Government’s ineptitude in dealing with Ebola. That ineptitude is ample. So, the public’s concern over Government ineptitude alone warrants the fear response. The Government, for its part, we should note, appears more concerned over the public’s reaction to an Ebola pandemic – civil insurrection because of the Government’s failure to protect the public – than over an Ebola pandemic.Reich may have been approached by the Administration to help quell rising fear in the Nation. Is fear over Ebola warranted? If not, is Reich suggesting the public must wait for a crisis to occur before fear is warranted? But why must the public wait for a crisis to occur? The presence of fear before a crisis prompts a person to action. The public is fearful of Ebola and rightfully so. Ebola is fearsome; it's a particularly horrifying disease. Appropriate and swift action serves to prevent crises. The public wants Obama to act. Obama sits back. He does nothing.Obama is altogether lackadaisical toward an Ebola outbreak in this Country. If a crisis must occur before the Obama Administration reacts to it, such action will be too late. Perhaps, it is already too late.And perhaps an Ebola crisis has already occurred. Consider: how many instances of Ebola constitute a crisis? One? Two? Three? A dozen? Two dozen? One hundred? One thousand? One Million? Ten Million? And, from just one case of Ebola, how quickly may that number jump to one thousand, and then to one million?Consider: Thomas Duncan, a citizen of an Ebola Hot Zone, Liberia, flew to the U.S. and walked through the gate. He broke no law. He was lawfully permitted entry. Obama said lockdowns of our airports would be counterproductive. Counterproductive? How? Counterproductive for whom? For Africans? May we  suggest that Obama exhibit a little more concern for the welfare of Americans and a little less concern over the welfare of Africans.Clearly, had airport security turned Thomas Duncan away, he would not have transmitted the disease to innocent Americans in this Country. That is fact, not conjecture. And having failed that, had Obama at least ordered Duncan returned immediately to his own Country, Liberia, and not permitted him to remain in the U.S., after he was positively tested for the Ebola disease, tragedy would have been averted -- while not for Duncan, certainly for others. Two American nurses, who treated Duncan at a hospital unequipped to deal with biosafety level 4 pathogens, who are suffering horribly, fighting desperately to survive, would today be alive and well had Duncan been immediately flown back to his Country or otherwise been taken to a biosafety level 4 facility in the U.S. for treatment. Neither action occurred. Other Americans, whom Duncan had come into contact with, both inside the hospital where he was treated, and outside it, may already be harboring the Ebola virus. And those Americans may be passing Ebola on to still more Americans.The newspapers tell us no American has died from the disease, as yet. Be that as it may, one person as reported, Duncan, has died from Ebola on American soil. That has never happened before. It has happened now. Obama says he has no “philosophical objection” to closing the airports to travelers from or residents of West Africa. But, still he refuses to do so. And he refuses to close our Southern border and our ports. Obama's bizarre actions and inaction toward Ebola amount to error upon error, compounded, or worse, reckless indifference to the welfare of Americans.The Wall Street Journal reports that Rwanda, an Eastern African Nation, where Ebola has not occurred, has closed entry to all travelers coming from Western African Hot Zones and carefully monitors all travelers in Rwanda who come from other Countries where Ebola has manifested, including the United States. But, Residents of Hot Zones in West Africa are freely admitted entry into this Country. Why is that? Why does Obama consistently allow this? Why is he unperturbed by the fact that this policy -- his policy -- has introduced Ebola into America and allows further transmitters of the disease direct and easy entry into the Country?It seems the Rwandan Government shows more concern for its own people than the Obama Administration does for Americans.Reich’s rejoinder to Americans' legitimate concern over Ebola curiously follows the trajectory charted by the Obama Administration.The premise of the argument is dubious:“The most important thing we can do to prevent Ebola from ever becoming a crisis in the United States is to help Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, where 10,000 new cases could crop up weekly unless the spread of the virus is slowed soon.   Isolating these poor nations would only make their situation worse. Does anyone seriously believe we could quarantine hundreds of thousands of infected people a continent away who are infecting others?The truth is quite the opposite. If the disease is allowed to spread in these places, the entire world could be imperiled.”So, we don't curtail entry of West Africans into the U.S. because that would otherwise, in some inexplicable way, make their situation worse and would not make our situation better? And, we help West Africans by doing what exactly? Sending thousands of American troops -- non-health care workers, who know nothing about hemorrhagic fever -- to West Africa in order to do what exactly? Contract the disease themselves?Do you recall a similar argument energetically put forth by both the Bush and Obama Administrations: “If we don’t fight them over there (the “Islamic Radicals”), we’ll have to fight them here.” The antecedent of that conditional statement is false. More than that, it’s ridiculous. Just imagine a ragtag group of Islamists invading our shores in an armada of tugboats.What have we gotten for our troubles? We are embroiled in conflicts “over there” – conflicts ongoing, conceivably forever; trillions of dollars spent on wars the public never wanted and certainly doesn’t need; thousands of Americans dead; tens of thousands more injured; a vacuum in Iraq, precipitated by our invasion of it and ouster of Saddam Hussein; and, now, unrest spilling into other areas in the Middle East. Let's extrapolate from this.If we don’t fight Ebola over there, so Reich says, we’ll have to fight it here. That means we commit – and have committed – thousands of troops “over there” (West Africa) to set up pup tents. Not improbably, many of those troops will bring back something the public doesn’t want and certainly doesn’t need: Ebola!What, then, should Americans do in order to protect themselves from this horrific scourge?The best course of action for us is to let Ebola burn itself out in Africa. This isn’t to suggest Ebola cases won’t crop up in the U.S. But we don’t have to help the pathogen along as the Government is doing by keeping the airport hubs, and ports, and Southern border of our Country open. So far, we know that Ebola exists in the U.S. precisely because we did allow a West African from a Hot Zone, Liberia, entry into this Country. So we must curtail that practice immediately. Doing so, we will certainly drastically reduce the number of new Ebola transmitters access to our land and our people. But, so long as Obama allows individuals from African hot zones entry into the United States, those individuals will continue to haul their deadly cargo with them -- inside them. If the Government disagrees with this assessment, then let’s have an open and frank debate about it. But, the Government doesn’t want an open and frank debate. So, we don’t have that debate.If the U.S. does suffer an Ebola epidemic -- and as the days go by, the reality of such a horror becomes more likely -- the American public shouldn't let Obama off the hook. We know what he'll say: "locking down the airports, and ports, and borders wouldn't have stopped Ebola from reaching our shores anyway." Our response: "Really, Mr. President? Might you not be wrong! Perhaps Ebola would've been averted. Now, we will never know. And, if Ebola couldn't have been averted, we wouldn't have faulted you for at least trying. But you never did try to avert Ebola. That is unforgivable. You didn't care enough to try. And that makes all the difference."REICH SAYS, “MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY STRAY BULLETS EVERY DAY IN AMERICA THAN HAVE BEEN KILLED BY EBOLA HERE.”Well, Robert, give Ebola a little time.Robert Reich is committing the “apples/oranges” fallacy. This fallacy involves the incomparability of two things. To analogize gun accidents and gun homicides to viral epidemics presumes that the yardsticks for measuring the two are the same. They aren’t. Quite simply, if an Ebola epidemic breaks out in this Country, tens of millions of Americans will fall sick in a relatively short span of time, and 80% to 90% of them will likely die horrific deaths in the absence of a vaccine to prevent the disease or a drug to cure it. At present, neither exists. Our health care system will surely crumble. Apart from the staggering loss of life in this Country and unimaginable suffering, the cost to the economy would be colossal, easily amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.The antigun crowd’s concern over guns is senseless, indeed, essentially meaningless, when one compares gun violence to the horror of an Ebola pandemic.Yes, to date, only one person – that we know about, Duncan – has died on American soil from Ebola. If there are others, the Government isn’t saying, and the mainstream media isn’t reporting them. Two others – that we presently know about – have contracted the disease from Duncan. One more case has just been reported in the news, as this article goes to post: a physician in New York City has contracted Ebola. How?Viral epidemics grow at an astounding rate, exponentially, and move at an extraordinarily quick pace. They easily spiral out of control. And, New York City has an extremely large, concentrated population. So, should New York City residents worry? Should Americans, wherever they are located in this Country, worry?

DOES THE NEED FOR GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS TRUMP GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO STOP EBOLA?

Reich says, “We’ve got to get our priorities straight.” In other words “expanded background checks for gun purchases” takes precedence over locking down our borders to curb Ebola, according to Reich. Some Americans might disagree with that assessment.

SUPPOSE AN EBOLA EPIDEMIC BREAKS OUT IN THIS COUNTRY.

If Ebola breaks out in this Country, the Government will likely institute martial law. That means the Government will curtail civil liberties to get a jump on insurrection. Insurrection will be the Government’s main concern, just as it was in the wake of “Katrina.” Concern for life will be secondary. Once Ebola burns itself out, curtailment of rights and liberties will remain, forever. Of that you can be certain.As one such proponent for autocracy, Rahm Emmanuel, said, “you don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid." One such important thing that might be done in the event of an Ebola epidemic is the dismantling of a particularly troublesome portion of the United States Constitution: the Bill of Rights. Crises for some always have a silver lining.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

BEYOND BIO HORROR MOVIES: EBOLA UNLEASHED IN THE UNITED STATES

WHEN EBOLA MISHAPS AND MISTAKES JUST DON’T CUT IT!

The Ebola virus has taken up residence in the United States. How has this happened? Why has this happened? You have heard the President telling the American public not to fret over it, that he has everything under control. And you have heard the mainstream media mouthpieces for the Government voice banal remarks about it. In this post and in the next few posts, the Arbalest Quarrel will take a close look at the Ebola pandemic from the standpoint of what the experts have to say about it, and we will consider those well-reasoned thoughts in light of recent horrifying events. We will also take a critical look at the propaganda the Federal Government spouts through its bullhorn, the mainstream media. Despite the endless platitudes, the American public has much to fear. Ebola is a fearsome disease. Most individuals who are infected by the Ebola virus will die from it. And death, virtually assured for 90% of those who contract it, does not come painlessly. Death by Ebola is horrific. Ebola’s manifestations are gruesome. The victim’s suffering is unimaginable: incessant internal and external bleeding, constant vomiting, and incessant diarrhea. The body’s organs liquefy. Such suffering ought not to be wished on one’s worst enemy.

WHAT MIGHT THE IMPACT OF A PANDEMIC BE ON THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS?

Although epidemics and pandemics may appear unrelated to America’s Bill of Rights, the Ebola outbreak in this Country very clearly touches upon our Bill of Rights. At the stroke of a pen the President might institute martial law across the Country, suspending the Public’s sacred rights. The President may unleash the police and military on the American public. Confiscation of all civilian firearms in the Country in the face of an Ebola epidemic in this Country may be among the President’s first orders.Ebola isn’t fiction. Ebola is real. Ebola is here in the U.S. Might not the President impose martial law? Is he considering that option now? Would an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. suffice as the President’s singular excuse, his pretext for “universal arms confiscation?” Americans must be alert to the possibility of an Ebola pandemic. And, concomitant with the inevitable and horrific loss of life here in America, Americans must face, too, the attendant loss of their inalienable Rights.WE KNOW WELL ENOUGH WE CANNOT TRUST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HONOR OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES. WE KNOW, TOO, THAT WE CANNOT TRUST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SECURE OUR BORDERS FROM AN INFESTATION OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS. AND WE ARE NOW LEARNING WE CANNOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO SECURE OUR BORDERS FROM THOSE WHO CARRY THE EBOLA VIRUS.

THE REALITY OF GLOBAL PANDEMICS

The U.S. Government has had several years to prepare for a worst case pandemic scenario but, as Ebola is now “out in the wild,” and has reached our shores, Americans see that the Federal Government has done nothing concrete to prepare for it.“Experts say pandemics are inevitable and the modern world is overdue. In the last three hundred years there have been ten flu pandemics. There were three flu pandemics in the twentieth century, in 1918, 1957, and 1968, which killed approximately forty million, two million and one million people worldwide, respectively.” SYMPOSIUM: SHAPING A NEW DIRECTION FOR LAW AND MEDICINE: AN INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ON CULTURE, DISASTER, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH: ANTICIPATING PANDEMIC AVIAN INFLUENZA: WHY THE FEDERAL AND STATE PREPAREDNESS PLANS ARE FOR THE BIRDS,” 10 DePaul J. Health Care L. 213 (Symposium 2007).  The Federal Government has done precious little if anything to forestall another pandemic -- the first of the twenty-first century -- and what may very well develop as the worst yet since 1918.CONSIDER: in response to the 2005 Katrina debacle, “the federal government published a national pandemic plan in November 2005, but public health experts worry the plan is not comprehensive enough to prepare Americans for the inevitable.” Id. So, public health officials worried over the lack of a comprehensive plan to prepare Americans for the inevitable, in 2005. What steps has the Government taken 9 years since to prepare for a worst case scenario? Answer: nothing concrete.

EBOLA RANKS AMONG THE THREE MOST HORRIFIC PATHOGENS IN THE WORLD

The birds have now come home to roost. EBOLA IS ONE OF THE MOST LETHAL VIRUSES KNOWN TO MAN. Three others include Hanta, Marburg, and Lassa. How lethal are these viruses?CONSIDER: in planning for the H1N1 virus, “the U.S. government has projected a worst-case scenario in which thirty percent of the U.S. population will become ill, millions of people will require hospitalization, and nearly two million Americans will lose their lives. Assuming no interventions, the direct and indirect health costs of a moderately virulent flu pandemic are expected to approach $181 billion.” "SYMPOSIUM: SHAPING A NEW DIRECTION FOR LAW AND MEDICINE: AN INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ON CULTURE, DISASTER, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH: ANTICIPATING PANDEMIC AVIAN INFLUENZA: WHY THE FEDERAL AND STATE PREPAREDNESS PLANS ARE FOR THE BIRDS,” 10 DePaul J. Health Care L. 213 (Symposium 2007).WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE THE COST IN DOLLARS AND AMERICAN LIVES WOULD BE IF A MAJOR EBOLA PANDEMIC TAKES OFF IN THE U.S.?The public is told not to fret. But, is the mainstream media – the voice box of Government – really giving the American Public ALL the critical facts? THAT IS UNLIKELY!

SO: WHAT IS EBOLA AND WHAT ARE ITS SYMPTOMS?

Ebola is “a form of hemorrhagic fever caused by the Ebola virus. Symptoms include fever, muscular pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. {It is} also called Ebola hemorrhagic fever, African hemorrhagic fever, and viral hemorrhagic fever.” Attorney’s Dictionary of Medicine, Copyright 2012, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.See also, The Merck Manual of Medical Information 1165 (Mark H. Beers ed., 2d Home ed. 2003). “Ebola is a virus that causes fever, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding from the nose and mouth, and loss of consciousness with up to 80-90% fatality rates. Strict isolation is required to avoid transmission to health care workers and there is no specific treatment.” Please note the Merck Manual of Medical Information requirement and warning about Ebola: “STRICT ISOLATION IS REQUIRED TO AVOID TRANSMISSION TO HEALTH CARE WORKERS AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC TREATMENT.”AND THIS FROM A THIRD ACADEMIC SOURCE: “Viral hemorrhage fever is a diverse group of illnesses resulting from immunologic responses to various viral infections. The common clinical features include high fever, leukopenia (reduction of white blood cells), altered mental status, and a hemorrhagic diathesis (higher than average tendency to hemorrhage). Marked toxicity and death may occur.” The viral hemorrhagic fever usually starts abruptly with fever, aches, and prostration, followed a few days later by hypotension (low blood pressure) and bleeding. Although many of these viruses are classified into several different genera and families, their clinical manifestations are quite similar.” David Kaufman, M.D. and Laura Obiso, 7-35 Attorneys’ Textbook of Medicine (Third Edition), Chapter 35, Systemic Infection.” “No effective treatment is available. Transfusion of human convalescent-phase plasma has been tried but to date no clinical or experimental data support its efficacy. Supportive therapy is the only alternative presently available. No vaccine is available to protect against Marburg or Ebola virus infection (Rollin, et al., 2000).” Id.“Persons who present with symptoms compatible with those of hemorrhagic fever and who have traveled to endemic areas should be isolated for diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. Diagnosis is made by growing the virus from blood obtained early in the disease or by showing a significant rise in a significant antibody titer. Isolation is particularly important, because some of these illnesses are highly contagious and carry a mortality rate of 50 to 90 percent. For most of these entities, no specific treatment is available (Carlini and Shandera, 2001).” Id. Recall two critical assertions from the above citation. The first is: “PERSONS WHO PRESENT WITH SYMPTOMS OF HEMORRHAGIC FEVER AND WHO HAVE TRAVELED TO ENDEMIC AREAS SHOULD BE ISOLATED FOR DIAGNOSIS AND SYMPTOMATIC TREATMENT.” The second assertion is: “ISOLATION IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ILLNESSES ARE HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS AND CARRY A MORTALITY RATE OF 50 TO 90 PERCENT.” Yet, the President adamantly refuses to lockdown our borders, thereby isolating our Country from the cesspool of West Africa where the Ebola epidemic is spiraling out of control. His response: send thousands of American troops to West Africa. To do what? To set up tent hospitals? Why can't the Africans do that? And, what then? To bring the troops home, harboring Ebola? Is that not possible? Even likely? And, if so, why send our troops to Africa at all? Why not let Ebola burn itself out there? Why bring death here?YET ANOTHER EXPERT HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT EBOLA:“Ebola hemorrhagic fever is a viral disease transmitted to humans from infected animals and animal materials, though many aspects of this disease, including the ways of transmission, are not fully known. Within a week of infection with Ebola, rashes, often containing blood, appear all over the human body, causing the patient to bleed from the mouth and the rectum. Ebola infection will usually result in the death of the infected person, though, as with Marburg disease, patients usually die from shock rather than from blood loss. There is to date no known treatment or cure for the Ebola disease. Patients are usually isolated to reduce the risk of transmission. Secondary cases of Ebola infection may occur in persons who are exposed to bodily fluids of an infected person, such as nurses and health-care workers in facilities with poor hygiene and limited or no infection control. One expert, Alfred DeMaria, remarks that ‘[i]t is possible that a health care worker from the developed world working in such a facility could have unrecognized contact with Ebola and return to their home country before the onset of symptoms." Indeed, some countries have introduced measures to exclude persons from entry if they are suspected of carrying the Ebola disease.’ “FROM BLACK DEATH TO BIRD FLU: INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS IN ASIA”, ANDREAS SCHLOENHARDT, 12 New Eng. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 263 (Spring, 2006).

FAILURE TO LOCKDOWN OUR BORDERS HAS LED TO THE RELEASE OF EBOLA IN THE U.S.

By failing to close our airports to all travelers from West Africa, the Federal Government allowed David Duncan, a citizen of Liberia, one of several West African Countries where Ebola is raging out of control, to enter this Country. That crucial failure of the Government to lockdown this Country has released Ebola in the United States. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PLAUSIBLY DENY THIS. IT IS FACT. And, as of the posting of this Article, the President has still refused to lockdown this Country.WOULD EBOLA HAVE MADE ITS WAY TO AMERICAN SOIL ANYWAY, AT SOME POINT IN TIME? PERHAPS; THE PRESIDENT’S COMMENTS SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT. BUT, EVEN ASSUMING THAT WERE TRUE, THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT HAVE MADE THE ARRIVAL OF EBOLA TO OUR SHORES EASY!Two nurses, ill-trained and ill-equipped to deal with Ebola, contracted the deadly illness through contact with Duncan.WHAT OTHER NURSES AND HEALTH CARE STAFF MAY HAVE CONTRACTED THE DISEASE? AND, WHAT OTHER AMERICANS WHO HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THESE NURSES ARE HARBORING THE EBOLA VIRUS?Are we simply witnessing honest mistake upon honest mistake? HARDLY! Are we witnessing gross negligence or even callous indifference to the plight of the American people? UNDOUBTEDLY! Will we see the exponential growth of Ebola in this Country? QUITE POSSIBLY!

THE GOVERNMENT HAS ORDERED AMERICAN SOLDIERS INTO A HOT ZONE. WHY?

CONSIDER: MIGHT NOT MANY, MANY AMERICAN SOLDIERS, WHOM THE PRESIDENT HAS SENT TO A HOT ZONE IN AFRICA, RETURN TO AMERICA WITH THE EBOLA VIRUS? IF THAT POSSIBILITY IS NOT SO REMOTE, WOULD OUR COUNTRY NOT BE BETTER SERVED IF EBOLA WERE PERMITTED TO BURN ITSELF OUT IN AFRICA RATHER THAN SHARING THAT SUFFERING HERE? THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS A DUTY FIRST AND FOREMOST TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HOW MUCH TRAINING HAVE THESE SOLDIERS HAD? A FEW HOURS? WHAT PRECAUTIONS ARE BEING TAKEN TO PRECLUDE THESE SOLDIERS FROM CONTRACTING THE DISEASE WHILE IN THE HOT ZONE MAELSTROM?The Federal Government, through the mainstream news media, has sought to quell the growing fear of a full-blown Ebola outbreak in the United States, but has, to our knowledge, done precious little to prevent it. Indeed, the Government’s failure to lockdown the Country’s major airport hubs has permitted entry of Ebola into the Country.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN’T GIVING THE PUBLIC ADEQUATE WARNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DESTRUCTIVENESS OF EBOLA.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DONE NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO WARRANT THE PUBLIC’S TRUST IN IT. AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HASN’T ALLAYED THE PUBLIC’S CONCERN OVER A FULL-BLOWN OUTBREAK OF EBOLA IN THE UNITED STATES?Forewarned is forearmed. Controlling panic is one thing. But creating a false sense of security is quite another. The public has a right to know the facts about Ebola. The public is already aware of the Government’s unpreparedness for it. No less so was the Government prepared for the disaster wrought by Katrina. An Ebola outbreak in this Country would be infinitely worse.EBOLA IS LETHAL! THERE IS NO KNOWN CURE FOR IT! THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE IT WILL DIE FROM IT! DEATH BY IT IS HORRIFIC! THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SAID THAT CONTRACTING THE DISEASE IS DIFFICULT! BUT, IS IT? GIVEN THE INCIDENCE OF THE DISEASE AMONG SEVERAL WELL-TRAINED AMERICAN HEALTH WORKERS WHO HAVE CONTRACTED IT WHILE WORKING WITH EBOLA IN WEST AFRICAN HOT-ZONES, THE PRESIDENT'S ASSURANCES RING HOLLOW.THE PRESIDENT AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA SAY EBOLA ISN'T AN AIRBORNE PATHOGEN? BUT, WHAT DOES THE PHRASE, 'AIRBORNE PATHOGEN' MEAN? CLEARLY, EBOLA CAN AND DOES EXIST OUTSIDE A "HOST" FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME. IF THE PATHOGEN ISN'T PROPERLY CONSIDERED AN "AIRBORNE PATHOGEN" IN A MEDICAL SENSE, THE EBOLA PATHOGEN NONETHELESS DOES EXIST FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME IN THE OPEN AIR, NOTWITHSTANDING,  IN A HOST'S COUGHS AND SNEEZES, AND THE PATHOGEN CERTAINLY EXISTS ON OBJECTS THAT WERE IN CONTACT WITH AN EBOLA HOST. THE GOVERNMENT HASN'T DENIED THAT!

PROTOCOLS FOR THE HANDLING OF DEADLY, CONTAGIOUS PATHOGENS

PROTOCOLS FOR HANDLING EXTRAORDINARILY DEADLY, HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS PATHOGENS, SUCH AS EBOLA, HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THE VERY EXISTENCE OF AND SPECIFIC NATURE OF THESE PROTOCOLS BELY ANY SUGGESTION THE EBOLA VIRUS ISN’T EASY TO TRANSMIT FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER.SO, WHAT ARE THESE PROTOCOLS THE PRESIDENT ALLUDES TO BUT FAILS TO DELINEATE?TO UNDERSTAND THESE PROTOCOLS, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF “BIOSAFETY LEVELS."BIOSAFETY GUIDELINES DO EXIST AND HAVE EXISTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.“Advisory guidelines published by CDC and the NIH, Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (“BMBL guidelines”) delineate biosafety and biosecurity protocols for laboratories depending on the threat posed to laboratory staff and scientists as well as surrounding communities. The BMBL guidelines delineate four biosafety levels ("BSL") in order of ascending levels of required containment. At each level, an appropriate containment procedure is prescribed with reference to specific facility safeguards, safety equipment, and microbiological practices. BSL-3 and BSL-4 protocols require heightened oversight of security procedure because of the dangerous nature of the agents and toxins examined in those facilities.

1. Biosafety Level 1 is suitable for work involving well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in immunocompetent adult humans and those which present a minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment.
2. Biosafety Level 2 builds upon BSL-1 protocols. BSL-2 designation is suitable for labs whose work involves agents that pose moderate hazards to personnel and the environment.
3. Biosafety Level 3 is applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities where work is performed with indigenous or exotic agents that may cause serious or potentially lethal disease through inhalation route exposure. Examples of agents handled and stored in BSL-3 laboratories include Tuberculosis and St. Louis Encephalitis virus. In addition to the standard microbiological practices employed in BSL-1 and 2 laboratories, BSL-3 laboratories are encouraged to control access to the facility, to decontaminate all waste and laboratory clothing, to conduct all work with agents in a Class I or II Biological Safety Cabinets (BSC), and to regulate air flow in and out of the laboratory.
4. Biosafety Level 4 is required for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of life-threatening disease, that are contagious by aerosol transmission, or any related agents with unknown risks of transmission. Examples of these types of biological agents include: foot and mouth disease; the Ebola virus; and smallpox. All work with these agents must either be conducted in a "Suit Laboratory" or a "Cabinet Laboratory" to protect the employees and the surrounding community from exposure.” “GOVERNANCE AND BIOSECURITY: STRENGTHENING SECURITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE NATION'S BIOLOGICAL AGENT LABORATORIES,” Michael Greenberger, Talley Kovacs, and Marita Mike, 13 DePaul J. Health Care L. 77 (Summer, 2010). “In addition to the standard procedures required for BSL-1, BSL-2, and BSL-3, the BMBL BSL-4 guidelines recommend that workers entering the laboratory should remove all of their personal clothing in an outer clothing change room and put on special laboratory clothing, including undergarments. Then, when exiting the laboratory, workers should remove their laboratory clothing in an inner changing room, shower, and dress in their personal clothes in an outer changing room. This is a time consuming process to go through just to enter and exit the laboratory.” "Biosafety Regulations: Who's Watching the Lab? Safety in High Risk Infectious Diseases Research," 25 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 213, Rebecca Emerson, (Fall, 2006).

These then are the ‘primary risk criteria’ used to define the four ascending levels of containment, referred to as biosafety levels 1 through 4.

CRITICAL FACT:

CLEARLY, THE CDC AND DOD ARE WELL AWARE OF THE PROTOCOLS FOR HANDLING EXOTIC AND EXTRAORDINARILY LETHAL PATHOGENS SUCH AS EBOLA IN A CLININCAL RESEARCH SETTING. WE KNOW CDC AND DOD SCRUPULOUSLY ADHERE TO GUIDELINES TO SECURE THE LETHAL PATHOGEN EBOLA, TO KEEP IT IN BIOSAFETY LEVEL 4 CONTAINMENT LABORATORIES. WHY WOULD WE REQUIRE ANY LESS STRINGENT MEASURES WHERE NURSING STAFF IS ASKED OR ORDERED TO TREAT AN EBOLA (BIOSAFETY LEVEL 4 PATHOGEN) PATIENT WHO IS ESSENTIALLY A HEAVY LOAD BIO BAG OF DEADLY CONTAGION?CONSIDER: “The proliferation of research on highly virulent pathogens in academic and commercial settings, without proper reporting and controls, poses a national public health threat. . . . Due to the dramatic increase in funds available for biodefense research, there is a mismatch between the demand for research and the availability of experienced researchers. As a result, scientists with too little training may be handling infectious agents that are too dangerous for their level of experience.” "Biosafety Regulations: Who's Watching the Lab? Safety in High Risk Infectious Diseases Research," 25 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 213, Rebecca Emerson, (Fall, 2006).SO, PLACING NURSING STAFF, WHO HAVE HAD INADEQUATE TRAINING IF ANY TRAINING AT ALL HANDLING THE DEADLY BIOSAFETY LEVEL 4 PATHOGEN, EBOLA, AND HAVING DONNED CLOTHING THAT IS USELESS OR VIRTUALLY USELESS IN PROTECTING AGAINST SUCH A PATHOGEN, CONFRONTED WITH A PATIENT SPEWING EBOLA LADEN VOMIT, BLOOD, AND DIARRHEA ALL OVER THE PLACE DOESN’T AMOUNT TO RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO THE LIFE AND WELL-BEING OF THAT NURSING STAFF?

THE BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION:

IF SUCH SCRUPULOUSLY STRINGENT MEASURES ARE IN PLACE AND HAVE BEEN IN PLACE TO CONTAIN THE EBOLA VIRUS AND TO TRAIN AND TO PROTECT THOSE WHO WORK WITH IT, WHY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO CAVALIER ABOUT THE HORRIFIC UGLINESS OF AND LETHALITY OF THE EBOLA VIRUS NOW THAT IT IS ACTUALLY OUT IN THE OPEN – “IN THE WILD?” DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CARE?KEEP IN MIND: EBOLA IS UNCONTAINED AND UNCONSTRAINED NOW PRECISELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO BAN WEST AFRICANS ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY. THE GOVERNMENT’S REFUSAL TO BAN WEST AFRICANS’ ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY BEFORE THE FACT IS BAD ENOUGH. BUT WHAT IS REMARKABLE AND REPREHENSIBLE IS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STILL REFUSES TO BAN WEST AFRICANS’ ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.According to the October 17, 2014 edition of The Wall Street Journal, President Obama “said he is open to a travel ban – presumably involving nations in West Africa where the Ebola outbreak is centered – if experts advise him one is needed. But so far they have not, he said, adding that he has no ‘philosophical objection’ to one.”WHAT THE HELL DOES “NO PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTION” TO A TRAVEL BAN MEAN?MOREOVER, WHO ARE THOSE EXPERTS WHO PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID ADVISED AGAINST A TRAVEL BAN? AND, WERE THERE NOT ADVISORS WHO ADVISED FOR A TRAVEL BAN, PERHAPS, WERE VOCIFEROUS IN ADVISING FOR A TRAVEL BAN?

SEVERAL SETS OF QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

If the Federal Government is in fact truly concerned about the immediacy of a full-scale Ebola pandemic in the U.S., then we have several questions we would like answered.FIRST:WHY WAS THOMAS DUNCAN, A PERSON FROM LIBERIA – A HOT ZONE FOR EBOLA – WHO LATER DIED FROM EBOLA, PERMITTED TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES? REMEMBER, EBOLA DID NOT BREAK OUT IN THIS COUNTRY UNTIL DUNCAN BROUGHT EBOLA INTO THE COUNTRY. AND, HE HAS SINCE PASSED THAT HORRIFIC DISEASE ONTO TWO BEAUTIFUL, YOUNG AMERICAN NURSES – TWO, AT LEAST, WHOM WE KNOW ABOUT. HOW MANY OTHER AMERICANS ARE NOW HARBORING THE DEADLY EBOLA VIRUS FROM DALLAS, TEXAS TO CLEVELAND OHIO AND, PERHAPS, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES ONLY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T DEEM IT NECESSARY TO PRECLUDE WEST AFRICANS FROM ENTERING THIS COUNTRY?SECOND:HAVING ENTERED THE UNITED STATES FROM LIBERIA, WITH EBOLA, WHY WASN’T DUNCAN IMMEDIATELY ASSESSED FOR EBOLA AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM OF THE DALLAS HOSPITAL WHERE HE PRESENTED HIMSELF? WHO IS AT FAULT? WHAT PROCEDURES WEREN’T ADHERED TO? WHO IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION? IS AN INVESTIGATION OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES BEING CONDUCTED? WILL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BE APPRISED OF THE OUTCOME OF AN INVESTIGATION?THIRD:ONCE THE CDC DETERMINED THAT DUNCAN HAD EBOLA, WHY WAS DUNCAN TREATED AT A GENERAL HOSPITAL NOT RATED AS A BSL-4 FACILITY, ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF BOTH HOSPITAL STAFF AND PATIENTS?FOURTH:WHY DIDN’T THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IMMEDIATELY ORDER THAT DUNCAN BE TAKEN TO A BSL-4 RATED FACILITY FOR TREATMENT OR SENT BACK TO LIBERIA FOR TREATMENT? AND, WHAT WAS THE CDC’S ROLL IN THIS? WHAT DIDN’T THE CDC DO? OR, WHAT DID THE CDC DO WRONG?FIFTH:WHY WAS DUNCAN TREATED BY HOSPITAL STAFF THAT HAD NO TRAINING IN DEALING WITH DEADLY BSL-4 LEVEL, HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS PATHOGENS?SIXTH:WHY WAS HOSPITAL STAFF THAT TREATED DUNCAN NOT PROVIDED WITH BSL-4 LEVEL PROTECTIVE SUITS BEFORE BEING ASKED TO ENTER OR ORDERED TO ENTER A ROOM WHERE THE EBOLA PATHOGEN WAS RUNNING AMOK IN UNCONTROLLED POOLS AND SPLASHES OF BLOOD, DIARRHETIC STOOL, AND VOMIT?SEVENTH:WHY HASN’T THE PRESIDENT AS YET ORDERED A LOCKDOWN OF OUR AIRPORTS AND WHY ISN’T HE SECURING OUR BORDERS?EIGHTH:HOSPITAL STAFF AND 911 DISPATCHERS ARE NOW CAUTIONED AGAINST USING THE “E” WORD. WHY? WILL THAT MAKE EBOLA GO AWAY?NINTH:WHY IS THE PRESIDENT STILL ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS FROM AFRICAN HOT ZONES ENTRY INTO THE U.S. AFTER ONE SUCH INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY BROUGHT EBOLA INTO THE U.S. AND INFECTED TWO YOUNG, BEAUTIFUL AMERICAN NURSES WITH A HORRIFIC, DEADLY DISEASE? ARE THE PRESIDENTS’ ADVISORS ALREADY TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT IT IS TOO LATE? THAT THE PUBLIC IS DOOMED?TENTH:WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT’S OPERATING IN A REACTIVE RATHER THAN PROACTIVE MODE? CLEARLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FLAILING JUST AS IT DID DURING THE KATRINA DISASTER. A PANDEMIC, THOUGH, DOESN’T JUST AFFECT ONE STATE OR A FEW STATES. A PANDEMIC AFFECTS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. THE PRESIDENT’S FIRST CONCERN SHOULD BE THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT THOSE OF WEST AFRICA. SO, WHY ISN’T THE PRESIDENT DOING MORE TO PROTECT PEOPLE HERE? WHY IS HE SENDING THOUSANDS OF YOUNG AMERICANS OVER THERE? THAT ONLY SERVES TO ENHANCE THE PROSPECT OF MORE EBOLA ARRIVING TO OUR SHORES WHEN THOSE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS COME BACK HOME CARRYING SOMETHING NO ONE WANTS AND NO AMERICAN NEEDS.Consider: “T. Grace Emori, a noted researcher at the CDC, who stated in a telephone interview, ‘My greatest fear is that those who decide to use bioterror will discover the secret to the spread of the Ebola agent and use it against a civilian population.’ “In such a situation, the carrier of the Ebola strain would himself, be dying. The virus would have begun the process of liquefying his internal organs. He would be coughing frequently and with that cough, potentially spreading the virus that was killing him. Applying the epidemiological model, the first to become ill would likely be those hosts who are usually at high risk for illness such as the old, the young or those with an underlying illness that suppressed their immune system. However, in an environment such as a crowded city, others would soon become infected. Closely confined spaces such as elevators, subways, busses or even restaurants would hasten the spread of the disease. Soon those infected first would infect others before they, too, died.” “PROVING CAUSATION IN ACTS OF BIOTERRORISM, Kenny Mallow Williamson,” 33 Cumb. L. Rev. 709 (2002/2003).BOTTOM LINE: DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT BIOTERRORISM WHEN INEPTITUDE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF AMERICANS IS EXHIBITED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT? COULD AN “ISLAMIC BIOTERRORIST” DO ANY WORSE WERE THAT PERSON TO CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY INTRODUCE A DEADLY PATHOGEN INTO THIS COUNTRY?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

PART 3: FATHERLAND, MOTHERLAND, HOMELAND: THE ORIGINS OF A POLICE STATE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

SUBPART 2: CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

An inverse relationship exists between power wielded by Government and a Citizenry's freedom from Government's exercise of that power. As Government accumulates power, there is a concomitant loss of freedom and liberty in the Citizenry. This is axiomatically true. The Founders of the American Republic knew this. As power waxes unchecked in Government, the liberties and freedoms of Americans, written in stone in the Bill of Rights, wanes. There is irony in this. The Federal Government, created to serve the American People, turns on the People and requires the People to serve it. In so doing, the Government betrays the People, destroys personal autonomy, and undercuts the rule of law.The Founders sought, through creation of a three branch system of Government, to prevent autocracy from taking root. The powers of Government are specific and limited. The powers not specifically bestowed on Government reside in the States and the People. The Rights and Liberties set down in the first Ten Amendments, comprising the Bill of Rights, of the U.S. Constitution, coupled with the specific and limited powers of the three salient Branches of Government as set forth in the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, if adhered to, ward against Government excess.The People see through abridgment or curtailment of rights and liberties held by them. The Executive has secured unfettered power for itself, unto itself. Congress, in whom the Founders bestowed certain powers to prevent Executive overreach, is either oblivious to or complicit in this. Deference shown to another Branch of Government is laudable; acquiescence is regrettable, if, at times, forgivable; abject subservience is not.Congress has abdicated its authority. Congress has allowed the Executive Branch to wage war without its approval. And Congress has enacted laws permitting the Executive Branch to run roughshod over the rights and liberties of the American People. In so doing, Congress is sealing its fate and the fate of the American people.In the first decade of the 21^st Century, Congress enacted a plethora of Statutes negatively impacting the Bill of Rights. Although aimed, ostensibly, at bolstering internal security, these Statutes clearly impinge on and infringe the rights and liberties of Americans. Two of the earliest include the 2001 “USA Patriot Act” and the “Homeland Security Act of 2002.” The latter Act authorized the creation of a vast bureaucratic structure, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The stated purpose of the former is “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” The two work in tandem. Both threaten personal autonomy and undermine individual liberty.

DHS: THE BIRTH OF A MONSTER

Richard Armey, a Republican Congressman, sponsored the Bill that became the “Homeland Security Act of 2002” (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135). A majority of Republicans in the House supported it. Most Democrats did not; nor did the President, George W. Bush, at least initially. He saw a new cabinet level office problematic and said so. See, “Crisis Bureaucracy: Homeland Security and the Political Design of Legal Mandates,” Dara Kay Cohen, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, and Barry R. Weingast, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 673 (December, 2006). Yet, a majority of House Republicans and every Senate Republican (save one who abstained) voted for enactment. So, President Bush reluctantly signed it into law on November 25, 2002. He has probably found it felicitous, and Obama certainly so. It has given the Executive Branch immense new powers. Republicans who generally and rightly bemoan the growth of Big Government were peculiarly pleased with their action here.What did the American Public receive? The Public received a vastly expanded Government bureaucracy, a lumbering monolithic structure, consolidating several government agencies, duplicating many police and intelligence functions, expending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies on programs that operate against Americans’ own interests, spreading its tentacles across the American landscape. DHS has flooded the States with money, taxpayer dollars, militarizing the States’ respective police forces, creating de facto agents of the Federal Government, driving a wedge between the States’ police agencies and their own residents.

“A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME. . . .”

Prior to the attack on the twin towers, no one inside the U.S. Government or outside it used the word, ‘homeland,’ to describe the United States. And, ‘homeland’ never appeared as an appellation for a Government office, bureau, agency, or cabinet level department; nor did the media refer to the United States by it. Now, though, it’s part of the Government lexicon. The mainstream news media uses it incessantly, drilling it into the public psyche. Much thought must have gone into its creation.How did the word arise as a political descriptor? Neither the news media nor the Government explains this. So, let’s hazard a guess. The word is curiously wholesome sounding, non-threatening, almost soothing, and deceptively vague – a marvel of propaganda. But, the word belies its innocuous tone. As applied to a vast, ponderous, monstrous bureaucratic structure, the word, ‘homeland,’ is neither quaint nor sweet. The word’s usage today alludes to an earlier era. Its progenitors invoke totalitarian regimes. Recall the application of similar words to other polities: ‘fatherland’ as an appellation for Germany under the Third Reich, and ‘motherland’ as an appellation for Stalinist Russia.The propagandists who came up with the word, ‘homeland,’ as a component of the “Department of Homeland Security,” (“DHS”) were clever. The word is a marvel of social conscious engineering. It subtly suggests a transformative process within the United States, overtly positive, but covertly negative: the devolution of a Nation State from its origins as a Democratic Republic to plutocratic or autocratic governance.Use of ‘homeland’ as a descriptor for the United States and for a new cabinet level department is not, then, accident or happenstance. Use of the word 'homeland' is deliberate. Use of the word, ‘homeland,’ subtly ushers in a new political order: the rise of the Police State.What does the “Department of Homeland Security” connote? If you know nothing about the structure of the Department, the name may suggest a vast network of internal, domestic control mechanisms. And, indeed, the Department is diffuse, a patchwork quilt, touching upon multiple facets of American life and conduct, expanding into all spheres of American life.The mission of DHS is set forth, thus: “to secure the nation from the many threats we face. . . . Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear – keeping America safe.” See www.dhs.gov/about-dhs. The mission statement seems straightforward and noble if also self-serving. But the phrases, "our duties are wide-ranging," and “keeping America safe,” have ominous overtones. In fact, DHS intends, condescendingly, to protect the American public from itself. That means, inter alia, arms control. Keeping America safe is a cloak for antiterrorism and national security measures which "are wide-ranging." Implementation of antiterrorism measures means impinging on and infringing America's sacred rights and liberties. Keeping America safe requires keeping tabs on the public, disarming the public, controlling the public. These are the policy objectives of DHS. CONTROL OF THE CITIZENRYA definite tension exists between DHS counterterrorism and national security mandates and America’s Bill of Rights. In a 2009 report, the DHS said the fear of gun regulations and bans is linked to a rise in right-wing extremist groups. See, “Quick on the Draw: Implicit Bias and the Second Amendment,” Adam, Benforado, 89 Or. L. Rev. 1 (2010), citing a DHS study. So, if DHS dubs a person "a right-wing extremist,"  ergo a "terrorist," that person may, potentially, be denied his right to keep and bear arms.But, who or what constitutes a right-wing extremist? If a person commits an act of violence against another because of one's race or religion, and is duly convicted of a felony in a court of competent jurisdiction, that person may reasonably expect to lose the right to keep and bear arms. State Statutes provide for that. But, if a person merely has a fascination with firearms, professes a dislike for illegal immigrants, associates with others of like kind, and proclaims distrust of the Federal Government, under what legal theory does DHS purport to dispossess him of his firearms? Under what legal theory does DHS purport to limit that person’s right to associate with others? Under what legal theory does DHS purport to invade that person’s privacy? DHS could assert that person to be a right-wing extremist and, potentially, a “terrorist.” And, that, apparently, is enough. But, for all that, what might give birth to seeming extremism in a Nation's citizenry? May not extremism, existent in or perceived in, a Nation's Citizenry be due to a corresponding extremism linked to Government's unreasonable, illegitimate, unconscionable intrusion on its Citizenry? May not such extremism in a Nation's Citizenry be directly linked to extremism in a Nation's Government? Might not the one be the cause of the other? Is not the very existence of DHS an absurdly extreme response to a decidedly weak external threat? Or, perhaps the relative strength or weakness of such external threat to a Nation is beside the point. Perhaps such postulation of this or that external threat is only a pretext upon which a Government -- this Government, the U.S. Government -- seeks to exert its control over its Citizenry -- that autocratic  or plutocratic, totalitarian rule may take shape, grow, express itself,  flourish, operate unimpeded -- that after 200+ years a Republic -- this Republic -- may be decidedly and decisively laid to rest.  So threats to a polity are exaggerated or simply manufactured. DHS is a vehicle through which Government fosters threats to hasten the end of -- not preserve -- our Democratic Republic. And, so fear of gun bans -- fear of dismantling of the Second Amendment -- is not an unreasonable fear in a Citizenry that realizes loss of its inalienable rights. The loss of such rights would not be taken lightly by the Citizenry; nor should it be. Extremism, an extreme response to the potential loss of a Citizenry's inalienable rights, would not be unexpected. And an extreme response would not be unwarranted. Extremism would, in fact, be the reasonable expression of a Citizenry's outrage toward its Government's betrayal. Government sees the extremism -- the extreme outrage exhibited toward it or enacted against it -- as a threat to it, and clamps down upon the populace. The threat to the polity, posed by the Citizenry against its Government, is no less the threat of the polity, exerted by the Government, against its Citizenry. The two go hand-in-hand.The Citizenry, the internal "other," not the external "other," is seen as the "real threat" to Government. The Citizenry, as a body, is viewed as the "Terrorist." At that moment the Security Police State is realized. The dream of the Security Police State for those who wish it is fulfilled. The Republic is undone. Citizens are merely subjects, "proles," individuals who have no rights -- individuals who have, at best, privileges, granted to them by the Government -- privileges that, as grants, can and would be revoked by the Government at any time.DHS tends to posit threats indiscriminately, under the guise of “keeping America safe.” It attempts to target ever more Americans as potential terror threats, and, in so doing, seeks to limit Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Americans’ First Amendment right of free speech and right of association, and Americans’ Fourth Amendment right to privacy. DHS mandates butt up against the Bill of Rights. See, generally, “National Security Interest Convergence,” Sudha Setty, 4 Harv. Nat'l Sec. J. 185 (2112). Sudha says unequivocally that “Americans will see their rights hemmed by antiterrorism measures.” That’s cause for consternation.Consider, in 2009, “the TSA {Transportation Security Administration, an agency transferred to and consolidated in DHS from the Department of Transportation} detained a man . . . who intended to fly from St. Louis to Washington D.C. carrying . . . cash he had generated selling bumper-stickers for ‘Campaign for Liberty,’ a Ron Paul-led organization. As the state of Missouri had warned the TSA that illegal militia members were likely supporters of third-party organizations and candidates, he was temporarily detained.” See, “Failing to Secure the Skies: Why America has Struggled to Protect Itself and How it Can Change,” Ian David Fiske, 15 Va. J.L. & Tech. 173 (Fall, 201).DHS is a destroyer of Americans’ sacred rights and liberties because its policy considerations are aimed at the twin, ill-defined and unusually broad mandates of counterterrorism and national security – mandates at odds with the Bill of Rights. Case in point: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). FEMA, like TSA, is now a component of DHS. You would think an agency whose purpose is disaster relief wouldn’t have anything to do with the regulation of civilian weapons. DHS changed that. In emergency situations – presumptively entailing insurrection – the first order of business of FEMA, as a component of DHS, is population suppression, not disaster relief. That became abundantly clear in the aftermath of Katrina. “Disaster Mythology and the Law,” Lisa Grow Sun, 96 Cornell L. Rev. 1131 (July 2011).Although President Bush required DHS to backpedal from its outrageous stance during Katrina, DHS still functions like the Department of Defense (“DOD”). No tenable distinction exists between “terrorist” acts and natural disasters. Its massive domain, though, is “internal security,” not external military operations. DHS has been tasked with creation of an Incident Command System (“ICS”) that mirrors the DOD framework. See “Law and Lawyers in the Incident Command System,” Clifford J. Villa, 36 Seattle Univ. L. R. 1855 (Summer, 2013).

WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO TO REIN IN DHS?

The impact on Americans’ rights and liberties in the era of DHS will continue to be severely tested. DHS will take draconian steps that upend the Bill of Rights. DHS will do this under the guise of “keeping America safe,” consistent with its broad counterterrorism and national security mandates. While DHS may, occasionally, have to backpedal, Congress should place constraints on DHS before the fact. Having created this multi-billion dollar monolithic nightmare, Congress owes the American people that much.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS DUPE THE PUBLIC ON GUN DEBATE

It is a curious fact that mainstream newspapers consistently fail to provide their readers with logically sound, consistent, coherent, cogent arguments to support their case against civilian ownership of guns. Indeed, there isn’t a pretense to do so. Rather, these newspapers prefer to recite banal normative prescriptions, empty slogans, and vague statements devoid of any meaningful content. The mainstream newspapers take as a given that civilian gun ownership is untenable. And upon that faulty foundation they spout pious sentiments and posit specious propositions, ostensibly to support a doubtful moral position.A few days ago, on September 27, 2014, Joe Nocera, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, wrote a piece titled, “Paralysis isn’t Inevitable.” In that Op-Ed Nocera says Congress can act to pass more gun laws. He points to a strategy Daniel Webster  Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, proposes to accomplish that.According to Webster, “It’s a loser to call for a gun ban.” Instead {Webster’s} reforms would make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Using background checks, {Webster} would keep guns away from people who have a history of violence. {Webster} would raise the age of gun ownership to 21. (Webster notes that homicides peak between the ages of 18 and 20). . . . And {Webster} would mandate something called microstamping, ‘which would make it possible to trace a gun used in a crime to its first purchaser. . . .’ And {Webster} pointed to polls that show the vast majority of gun owners favor such changes.”Nocera then quotes, with approval, Webster’s obligatory attack on the NRA. “The N.R.A. has been very successful in controlling the conversation and making it about a cultural war. . . . But, I believe that narrative won’t persist. The key . . . is to change the conversation so that it is about pro- and anti-crime instead of pro- and anti-gun. . . . I think that ultimately that idea will prevail, and it will be a pretty mainstream idea.”Before we analyze the various assertions expressed in this Op-Ed, keep in mind that the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is not a neutral think tank. It has an agenda and that agenda is decidedly unfavorable toward the Second Amendment. Its purpose: “The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research began in 1995 with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago. It is dedicated to reducing gun violence by providing information on firearm injuries and gun policy; by developing, analyzing, and evaluating strategies to prevent firearm injuries; and by conducting public health and legal research to identify gun policy needs.”You will note the absence of any mention of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the context of the Center’s mission statement. The normative argument implicit in the Center’s mission statement and as tacitly conveyed in Nocera’s Op-Ed is this: anything that the Center perceives as harmful to the public is morally reprehensible and must be banned. Guns are perceived as harmful to the public. Therefore guns must be banned. That is the moral argument – the normative prescription against gun ownership and possession. And, the goal of the “The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research" is clear enough from a perusal of its mission statement. Colloquially expressed the goal is simply this: Get guns out of the hands of the civilian population. Now, let’s take a look at the fallacies and speciousness of Webster’s assertions as cited, nonetheless, with approval in Nocera’s NY Times Op-Ed piece.First, we might well ask how Webster’s strategies prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Clearly, criminals aren’t prevented from obtaining guns. But, a good chunk of law-abiding American citizenry would be precluded from obtaining guns if any of these strategies became law. Apparently, Webster and Nocera equate criminals – who have never had a problem obtaining guns – with law-abiding citizens, whom they do not wish to have access to guns.Second, Webster says that, “it is a loser to call for a gun ban.” No kidding and rightly so! Yet, in the very assertion Webster admits the need to deceive the public. To get the public to cajole Congress to enact further restrictive gun laws, it is necessary to get the public to think less about the law-abiding citizen’s right to own and possess guns and more about criminals who misuse guns. Of course, Webster fails to acknowledge the myriad laws on the books that prohibit criminals from owning guns – laws that are rarely, if ever, enforced. So, Webster’s desire for further restrictive laws against gun ownership and possession must be directed, not against the career criminal, but, rather, against the law-abiding citizen.Third, knowing that laws against ownership of guns by law-abiding Americans won’t fly, Webster suggests attacking the right to keep and bear arms obliquely, through the device of “background checks.” Note: Webster hasn’t mentioned using background checks to target criminals. Rather, he wishes to target two other exponentially larger population groups: those under the age of 21, specifically those between the ages of 18 and 20, and those whom, he says, “have a history of violence.”Let’s take a closer look at these two groups. It should be obvious to all Americans that the minimum age of enlistment in any of the armed forces is 17. So, an American citizen may, as a soldier, handle and possess sophisticated weaponry at age 17, but Webster and Nocera would deny an American citizen, as a civilian, to own and possess a gun until he or she is 21.You see where this is going. Say a young man or woman leaves the military at age 20. A person risks life and limb to serve his and her Country and is perfectly adept at handling firearms; but, as a civilian, that American citizen isn’t permitted to own a firearm because he or she falls into an age group that, according to Webster, happens to have the highest rates of homicide. Dubious statistics trumps ice-cold logic.Fourth, and what does the phrase “a history of violence” mean: That a person who had ever said a discouraging word to another person is violent? That a person who was depressed at some point in his or her life is presumptively violent against self and/or against others? That a person who had ever had an altercation with another for whatever reason is violent? That a soldier or sailor or airman who had engaged in armed conflict is violent? Cannot such an open-ended phrase, “a history of violence,” sweep into the clutches of the gun grabbers literally millions of honest, law-abiding Americans? Undoubtedly, Webster wishes to keep the phrase as open-ended and as amorphous as possible, to corral millions of law-abiding Americans.Fifth, Webster and Nocera refer to that “something” or other called microstamping that would enable the police to trace a gun “to its first purchaser.” The emphasis here is on tracing a gun “to its first purchaser,” and not to the criminal who actually used the gun in the commission of a crime. So, a criminal plants cartridge shells at the scene of the crime or steals a gun from a law-abiding firearms owner. The police duly “trace” the gun “to its first purchaser,” and not to the criminal. And, we are to conclude that microstamping is an acceptable forensics tool for law enforcement? Really? Clearly, microstamping of firearms is worse than useless. Apparently, Webster and Nocera think otherwise. Perhaps they simply don’t care, reasoning that, if a law-abiding person didn’t have a gun in the first place, the gun could never be traced back to him. So, the moral is: don’t own a gun!Sixth, and what about those opinion polls? Without referring to any particular poll, Webster says that, in the wake of Newtown, gun owners favor changes to existing gun laws. What changes is Webster referring to? And, what questions were asked of “gun owners” whom Webster claims support “changes?” Certainly, one can phrase a question in a multitude of ways to elicit any answer the questioner wishes. And, asking a question about guns, when emotions run high, is not the time to push through legislation. The public should be treated with respect. And appeals should be directed to one’s higher cognitive functions, not to the emotive center of one’s brain.Seventh, Webster attacks the NRA. The antigun crowd always attacks the NRA. Webster asserts the NRA controls the conversation about guns. If that were only true! Actually, the NRA is forever compelled to repel insistent attacks against it and against the Second Amendment. Webster says the NRA makes the issue about guns a “cultural war.” Since when is the battle to preserve and secure our sacred Bill of Rights reduced to a matter of personal aesthetics, which, apparently, is what Webster is getting at through use of the word ‘culture?’ And, when, if ever, did the NRA profess a cavalier attitude toward crime? Webster suggests that any pro-gun argument, which, actually, is a pro Bill of Rights Second Amendment argument, entails acquiescence toward gun violence. That is absolutely false, but Webster creates the association anyway suggesting, ludicrously, that the NRA, by being strong on guns, is soft on crime.Bottom line: don’t look to the mainstream news media for cogent, well-reasoned arguments. You won’t get them.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: CONTROL OF THE CITIZENRY

PART 3: FATHERLAND, MOTHERLAND, HOMELAND: THE ORIGINS OF A POLICE STATE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

SUBPART 1: CONTROL OF THE CITIZENRY

When historians consider the date the United States, a Free Republic, became a Police State, there will be disagreement aplenty. Many, if not all historians, will acknowledge, though, that transformation of the United States from a Free Republic, as envisioned by the Founders, to a Police State did not occur instantaneously. The change, historians likely will agree, occurred incrementally although with rapidity – indeed – with ferocity during the first decades of the 21^st century. Historians will likely emphasize the curtailment of Rights and Liberties expressly enshrined in the Bill of Rights. This is one indicium of the transformative process. The other indicium is the unprecedented usurpation of and accumulation of powers in one branch of the Federal Government, the Executive, and the simultaneous reduction of power – indeed – abdication of authority of another branch of the Federal Government, the Legislative. Historians will remark upon an important reversal: the institutions of Government that were created to serve the Public had turned on that Public, and the Public had become subservient to the institutions of Government.Control of the Public is key. The Public is perceived as a potential threat to the institutions of Government. To reduce that threat the Public must be controlled. The Bill of Rights must be dismembered: privacy – gone; freedom to speak one’s mind and to freely associate with one’s fellows – gone; and the right to keep and bear arms – gone.It is curious that, as the American citizen’s rights and liberties are slowly restricted and eventually erased, the powers of the Police State grow exponentially and those powers become paramount.The greatest concern to an authoritarian government is an armed citizenry. That must be dealt with first and foremost, and relentlessly by adherents of the Police State. An autocracy cannot function where the citizenry of the State is armed. Thus, an armed citizenry must be suppressed.The Government’s mechanism of repression is twofold: restrict the citizenry’s access to firearms and, contemporaneously, monitor and control the citizenry through the tripartite agencies of intelligence, police, and the military.In the past, in the Free Republic that once existed in the polity called the United States, the agencies of intelligence, police, and the military were clearly defined and demarcated. That is no longer the case. Police forces are now militarized. The military is taking on policing functions. And intelligence is ubiquitous – the distinction between internal security and foreign intelligence increasingly muddied. Every American citizen is now perceived as a potential threat to the “homeland” – no more or less so than a foreign national or stateless person. The Government doesn’t say that. But, it is so.The abdication of Congressional responsibility, together with the usurpation of power in the hands of the President, is painfully obvious. What powers the President doesn’t usurp overtly and wrongfully from Congress, Congress dutifully hands over to the President in a flood of Statutes – Statutes that clearly impinge and infringe upon the Bill of Rights. One of the most pernicious Statutes to date is “The Homeland Security Act of 2002,” 107 P.L. 209; 116 Stat. 2135. We will take a close look at that Statute and the manner in which the very existence of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) operates to destroy the individual integrity of police agencies, the integrity of the military, and the integrity of intelligence agencies. And we will take a close look at the manner in which the muddying of the integrity of those three discrete functions, as they operate today in America, jeopardizes the very sanctity of and continued existence of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

29th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference

EVENT NOTICE:29th ANNUAL GUN RIGHTS POLICY CONFERENCEChicago, IllinoisSeptember 26-28, 2014Stephen L. D’Andrilli, President of Arbalest Group, LLC. and co- publisher of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog will be a guest speaker at the GRPC on Saturday, September 27, 2014. He will be discussing the timely issue: “microstamping of firearms.” Stephen’s presentation is a synopsis of a microstamping article posted on the arbalest quarrel website, on June 28, 2014. Interested parties are invited to view the presentation, in full, and an in depth discussion of microstamping.

Microstamping Of Firearms: A Synopsis

By Stephen L. D'Andrilli

As Presented at the 29th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference on September 27, 2014, in Chicago, Illinois, 2014

MICROSTAMPING OF FIREARMS

As I discuss the topic of microstamping of firearms, keep in mind that California is the first State to implement the microstamping of semiautomatic handguns. It sought to implement microstamping on January 1, 2010. But, patent restrictions precluded putting the law into effect on that date. However, on May 17, 2013, the California Attorney General certified that the technology was not encumbered by patent restrictions. The law, Section 31910(b)(7) of California’s Penal Code took effect immediately. The law sets forth in principal part: all semiautomatic pistols must be “equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.” The lawfulness of that Section is presently being contested by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute.  Other States are likely to follow California’s lead.  We have to wait and see.What is microstamping? Todd Lizotte, the inventor of the technology, describes it as a method for inscribing information onto a component part of a semiautomatic handgun.  He filed two patents for it, and subsequently assigned all of his right, title and interest in it to a Pennsylvania company, Identification Dynamics, LLC., that, according to the patent registrations, is the current owner of it.Lizotte’s first patent abstract explains his microstamping technique for inscribing information onto a component part of a firearm. His second patent describes the method and apparatus needed to read the identifying information.So, why have it? The answer to this question gives us the rationale, good or bad, for using the technology.  Antigun groups say that it has made comprehensive ballistic identification a reality; it enables police to trace a gun without ever physically recovering it; and, a traced firearm is a valuable lead in a criminal investigation.The antigun crowd has latched onto microstamping with enthusiasm, invigorated by the notion that it will help police solve crimes. But, does it really work in practice? Not according to the experts!  Here are ten of the problems with it:First: Microstamping analysis has repeatedly failed tests that were conducted at the University of California, Davis Campus. And, the firearms examiner of Suffolk County, New York, who conducted tests in the police crime lab, found the vast majority of microstamped characters in the alphanumeric serial number could not be read on any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined.Second: Studies revealed the technology is easily defeated.  The codes on firing pins, for example, were easily removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated using simple household tools.Third:  Most gun crimes cannot be solved by microstamping, or simply do not require it to be solved; notwithstanding TV shows that portray crime-solving as impossible without sophisticated technology.Fourth: Microstamping does not allow for the quick and simple identification of spent shell casings, by forensic specialists, at the scene of a crime.  The testing process is laborious and requires specialized equipment that is very expensive.  Lizotte noted the need for such equipment in the second of his two patents.Fifth: According to the BATFE, almost 90% of gun crimes are acquired through the black market and it takes on average about 11 years for the police to recover those guns. Still, such guns are eventually traced back to the criminal. Microstamped guns, on the other hand, can only link a gun to the lawful owner of it. So, a criminal is likely to turn to a gun source that can never be traced to him: the law-abiding gun owner. Gun thefts are likely then to become more frequent in jurisdictions, such as California, where firearm microstamping laws have been enacted.Sixth, Similarly, one of the biggest dangers is the possibility that anyone could collect microstamped shell casings from firing ranges and plant them at the scene of a crime. This ultimately could lead to a false arrest or implicate an innocent person in criminal activity, and police can expend needless resources “on a wild goose chase.”Seventh: It’s unlikely that microstamping technology would be admissible in court.  In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ruled that scientific evidence produced at trial must not only be relevant, but reliable. Microstamping technology, to date, isn’t reliable because it has not gone through extensive peer review to warrant a finding of reliability.Eight: Credible estimates by gun manufacturers suggest that the cost of a gun incorporating this technology would increase by $100 to $200.  As we all know, a “good” semiautomatic pistol can run anywhere from $500 to $1,000, or more.  This additional expense would place the cost of owning a semiautomatic pistol well out of reach of many, if not, most Americans.Ninth: There is the so-called “remainder problem.”  There are millions of handguns presently on the market.  None of them make use of microstamping technology. California law doesn’t require retrofitting of those guns.  Could you imagine the backlash among residents of the State, if California did?  Also, many handguns are revolvers.  Revolvers do not eject spent shell casings.  Criminals need only use a revolver in the commission of a crime to defeat the technology.Tenth: Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger, will not sell semiautomatic handguns in California.  Microstamping adds too much cost to the manufacturing process and does nothing to promote gun safety.  In effect, then, California’s microstamping law acts as a restraint on trade.This brings us to the most important question, “does microstamping infringe on our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms?”California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” is a prelude to gun registration. It requires precisely what Lizotte warns against. It turns microstamping of firearms into a de facto registration scheme because California law requires etching more than a random series of alphanumeric characters on a firearm, but the make, model and serial number of the firearm itself, none of which, at the moment, at least, can be reliably read anyway.As the Federal Government and certain State Governments seek to keep track of all Americans, to learn ever more about us – our thoughts and habits, our hopes and fears, our beliefs and dreams, what we own or simply what we may wish to own – the microstamping of firearms is yet one more device through which Big Government controls our lives. Registered guns make confiscation of guns much easier. Confiscation of guns is a salient feature of a “Police State.” It isn’t a feature of a “Free Republic.”Thank you.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.