The DICK act

[jack404]

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that stated and published , if anyone say to take away guns , give em the Dick

[wyoredot]

Jack, you are a constantly running fountain of valuable and amusing information! And the last line of your post is VERY well put.

[jim summers]

Informative article, which brings me to the question of how is the POTUS being allowed to send NG troops overseas to fight in this current war. I guess this President is not bound by the contents of the Constitution.

[jack404]

nor decency , nor honesty ,nor morality , nor any obligation to the American people, but he is "bound by the most beautiful sound of the world , the imam making the call to prayer " from his own book ........

guess that shows a bit more of what it really is

[jack404]

repealed GN not curcumsized...

hey , for obama ,,,, do you think we have a electron microscope developed yet that could get a sex determination on him ?? or is it for things that small they are still a few years away ??

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by jim summers

Informative article, which brings me to the question of how is the POTUS being allowed to send NG troops overseas to fight in this current war. I guess this President is not bound by the contents of the Constitution.

He is able to send the NG overseas with the consent of the governors of the various states. The governor of each state is the commander in chief of that state's national guard, and as such the governor can turn the Guard over to the command of the President.

[Big ugly]

Originally Posted by jack404

repealed GN not curcumsized...

hey , for obama ,,,, do you think we have a electron microscope developed yet that could get a sex determination on him ?? or is it for things that small they are still a few years away ??

:

[Eddie N]

Jack, I have to ask where you got this information. I've been looking, but only find mention on various forums. I did find this, however...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

[jack404]

the US Library of Congress online

i paid for a all rights access ( still cant print some stuff though ) but i can screen capture ( printscreen) and OCR the most jpg images (if the scan online is stained or too dark , it dont work so i retype it)

and share ...

[jack404]

I have a Smithsonian and Hermitage' account too ..

[Eddie N]

OK, thanks, Jack. That probably explains why I couldn't find it.

[jack404]

BUT! if i may say , when the net got going ( not the start but when governments had stuff online) all this was simple fido and ringnet documents (text) everywhere

the sites that then rehosted versions and web pages with all these have all dissappeared

i Very much like what your founding fathers and others in your history did , i've been trying to learn this social consciousness that did not turn socialism but free enterprise , reward for effort, human rights and dignity , and so have been a student of this philosophy for years

but the resources i have had book marked have mostly gone , wiki has come but its not the be all and end all ..

and the arguments and other papers done on these events laws and discussion have all gone too , these where incite-full and showed the true depth of thought in such great men

all gone now , maybe out there on some thinking persons site and blog , but to many , lost in so much BS

or hidden away with expencive ( to many) access only ...

[ofitg]

Originally Posted by jack404

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

OK, so I'm dense. Since when can any bill not be repealed?

Any lawyers in the house?

[jack404]

my understanding is part of why is the onflow effects of laws made based on this , many of them defence related and freedoms related ex post facto means the laws made after this but that pertain to it ( roughly )

theres another part and i really never followed that side the bills of attainer part , unique to the US but i never really looked at it , just the rights invested, through people, via law a damn nice process..

[glocknut]

Originally Posted by Eddie N

OK, thanks, Jack. That probably explains why I couldn't find it.

mike
gn

[armedandsafe]

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/bl...ct-of-1902-the
(07/24/2012 - resistnet.com has gone defunct. It is now a social network called patriotactionnetwork.com and much of the nifty stuff they hosted is gone.)

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...I3&hl=en&pli=1

Pops

[armedandsafe]

http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-16.htm

Secretary Root took the lead in presenting to Congress in 1901 a program for reform of the National Guard. In response to his recommendations, Congress in 1903 passed the Dick bill, which thoroughly revised the obsolete Militia Act of 1792. It separated the militia into two classes, the Organized Militia, to be known as the National Guard, and the Reserve Militia, and provided that, over a five-year period, the Guard's organization and equipment be patterned after that of the Regular Army. To help accomplish these changes in the Guard, the Dick bill made available federal funds; prescribed drill at least twice a month, supplemented with short annual training periods; permitted detailing of Regular officers to Guard units; and directed holding of joint maneuvers each year. Failure of the new measure, however, to modify significantly the longstanding provisions that severely restricted federal power to call up Guard units and control Guard personnel limited its effectiveness. Subsequent legislation in 1908 and 1914 reduced these restrictions to some extent, giving the President the right to prescribe the length of federal service and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all officers of the Guard while the Guard was in federal service.

Pops

[RunningOnMT]

When I saw the title to this post I thought "I knew they'd get around to taxing it sooner or later". Fortunately (or unfortunately) for me I'll be in the low tax bracket on that one.

[swiftman]

Thanks Jack )

[dbrodin]

I hate to say it, but this issue has gone to SCOTUS and the Governors lost. Minnesota objected to a guard unit being sent to central America (Nicaragua?) in support some anti-something program. Our Governor said no, and went to court. The courts sided with the Feds. I don't remember their reasoning. I was still it HS at the time.

Dale

[Marlin T]

Man this place is a wealth of information!!!

I was going to make a new thread but everything is already here.

Link, in PDF

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-Ap...TI3/edit?pli=1

[skullfr]

great post Jack

[jack404]

just sharing the wisdoms that many are trying to hide from you all there , while trying to figure what i can steal of that nature for our own future usage here , maybe