Limitless Nexus
Search site

exhibition Info
Dick Act of 1902

Type: Literature (pdf)

Submitter: [anonymous]

Category: Guides / Tutorials - Miscellaneous

Exhibition Date: 2018-04-16 06:34:19 MST

Views: 94

This exhibition has not been rated yet.

Rate this exhibition




Submitter's Comment
DICK ACT of 1902
... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical
by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable. 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.
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 The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex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 lawswhich 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) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917,
proved that the action of President Wilson in 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 More Info With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the
federal CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section
3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot
ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government. I read
somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized
militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's notice.
Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case? Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban
all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our
current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supersede the Constitution: "This
[Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution
over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg. 17. This case involved the
question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S.
Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, "... No
agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of
government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy
clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..."
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them
do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates
which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result..."It would be
manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who
were responsible for the Bill of Rights let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and
tradition to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an
international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates
1836 ed. pgs. 500-519)."In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document
in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.
The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National
Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate
combined. Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order,
Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty,
passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; 7Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that, "The treaty power as expressed in the
Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument
against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of
the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as
to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a
change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter
without its consent."
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it
cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our
government wish, without our acquiescing to it. The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply
with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders
the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the
Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT

Keywords: 2nd Amendment Right Cannot Be Legally Infringed Upon

Most Recent User Comments
There are no comments for this exhibition yet.

Leave a comment
Please log in or create an account to post a comment.
Related sponsor

Related Literature

Other related exhibitions

Related links