Would you take up arms against an imposed government?

Today is October 16, 2004. One of the most important elections in this country's long history will take place in just three more weeks. There is growing evidence of voter fraud throughout the nation - not just a few dozen votes, but as many as FIVE MILLION in all. Five states sent electors to the Electoral College by fewer than 5000 votes each - with enough deligates among them to determine who would be our next president. Frankly, there's no way to purge all the ineligible voters from the roles between now and November 2nd. In addition, both parties have massed huge armies of lawyers to contest anything and everything, once more tearing our election process from the hands of citizens and placing it in the hands of the judiciary.

The question is, if you knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the current elected government had won by outright fraud, would you be willing to take up arms to overturn it?

Just about everyone has read the first sentence of the second paragraph of our Declaration of Intependence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

A few people - perhaps a third of those who have graduated from high school after 1970 - have even read the next sentence:

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

Government's legitimate - just - powers come from the consent of the governed. But if the election were won by fraud, would that hold true? The people haven't legitimately confferred power to the government by their choice - their choice was nullified by fraud. Would such a government be legitimate?

Others argue that once our current form of our government was chosen, the Declaration of Independence was no longer applicable. Truth doesn't go out of style just because something else moves in next door. The sole legitimate purpose of government is still the security of the rights of the governed. Notice I said GOVERNED, not citizens. Our government establishes laws and responsibilities for all within its borders, and for the action of our government beyond our borders. That government is responsible for all its behavior, regardless of who is affected by its actions, or where that government's activities take place. Treaties, verified by the Senate and signed into law by the President, continue until nullified by legislative action, not just because we change presidents or a different majority is established in Congress.

Which brings us back to whether a government elected by fraud has any legitimacy. In our society, we have a "majority rule" system, with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that the majority doesn't infringe the rights of the minority. Our Declaration says that "just powers" are granted by the "consent of the governed". If that consent is bestowed by fraud, it is fraudulent, and any actions of that government are also fraudulent.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored our Declaration of Independence, was deeply hostile to most forms of government, and highly distrustful of one that relied on the consent of the people. He foresaw that we might end up with a government established through fraudulent means. The next sentences of the Declaration of Independence establish the role of the citizen in contesting that fraud:

...that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem to be most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

A government implemented by fraud has no legitimate power, and the citizens may 'alter or abolish it'. It's not just our right, it's our DUTY to do so, if we wish to live in a society "most likely to effect" our "safety and happiness".

Even Jefferson agreed that changing governments on a whim would not be a good thing for its citizens. He writes:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The people of the United States have changed their form of government three times: upon their victory over England in the Revolutionary war, upon the acceptance of our current Constitution after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and during our own Civil War, which, among other things eliminated slavery, but most importantly, catapulted the Federal government ahead of the States in power and jurisdiction, virtually evicerating the Tenth Amendment, but without use of the legitimate, Constitutionally-designed steps necessary to do so.

Our current form of Republican government, with representatives elected to work on our behalf to secure our rights and protect our freedoms, of an independent judiciary dedicated to punishing those guilty of infringing upon our rights and restraining the excesses of Congress, and an independent Executive branch to oversee daily operations, has worked well since its inception in 1787. But our government is only as good as the processes that support it. Today, one of the chief processes of government, fair and equal elections, is under attack. SHOULD THAT ATTACK SUCCEED IN ACCOMPLISHING ITS GOALS, OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ESSENTIALLY HIJACKED BY ILLEGAL MEANS. It would no longer be a government 'deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed'.

Any government elected in November that is not empowered by the expressed, LEGITIMATE wishes of the people, will not be valid. It would be the duty of the Military to see that it does not take office - Military oaths are to the Constitution, not the government. It would be the duty of citizens to hold those who allowed the fraud to be held accountable, and to be punished - severely - for their attempt to derail our long-standing government. It would be the RIGHT of every citizen to take up arms against such a government - and it is the guarantee, severely, unlawfully restricted by former governments, but enshrined in the Second Amendment, that gives us the ability to do so. Finally, it is the right of every citizen to refuse to obey any order from such an unlawful government, and to take any action the citizen may deem appropriate to ensure such an unlawful order is not followed.

That is the ULTIMATE check upon the power of government that is in the hand of the people of this nation. If necessary, it is essential that such power BE used, and used wisely.