Constitutional Protections

Sitting here ruminating about the sorry state of the nation again.  Sorry if that offends you, but it's the way it is.

Memory drives me in thinking that it has become all too acceptable for the PTB (Powers That Be) to utilize military force in dealing with our own population.  The precedent was set a long time ago - even before the War Between the States - and continues even today.  In my own lifetime I've seen the National Guard used against the populace in Alabama, under the orders of then-President John F. Kennedy.  I've seen them fire upon student protesters at Kent State during the Nixon administration, under the orders of Ohio Governor James Rhodes.

More recently (September 24, 2009), National Guard, Air Force, and Marine personnel were used as "security" for the G20 conference in Pittsburgh, PA, and fired upon protesters using a variety "non-lethal" weapons.  Those weapons are only "non-lethal" in the sense that they are "intended to render the target incapable of action" , rather than kill instantly.  I submit that getting hit by a "bean bag" full of shot, powered by a 12-gauge shotgun charge,  is nearly as likely to kill as is the loose shot - particularly if it hits someone in a vital spot.

These instances are just a few that have made major headlines, but they do not represent a departure from the norm as much as an ongoing trend in the national government - to utilize military force to pacify our own country.  They are legitimized today by provisions of the USA Patriot Act (2001) and the Homeland Security Act (2002) - both signed by G.W. Bush - effectively suspending the Bill of Rights for everyone in the country under the guise of combating terrorism..

I think it's time for a NEW Constitutional Amendment, and I think it should read as follows:

1. The purpose of the Armed Forces of the United States of America being to defend the People of the United States, neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Courts, nor any other agent of the government of any kind, nor any State, shall order those Forces to take up arms or in any wise utilize force or stand against the citizenry.  
2. No agent or office of the Government of the United States, nor any State, may circumvent the intent of this Amendment by utilizing mercenaries, or volunteer forces, or forces provided by a foreign power, or military or paramilitary forces of any kind, whether paid or not, from public funds or private. 
3. This prohibition shall not be set aside by any Finding of Rebellion or Insurrection by any agent or office of the Government of the United States, or any State.

The first section is self-explanatory.  Any military force, including Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, Coast Guard, or whatever, would be prohibited from engaging in hostile action against the civilian population, in whole or in part.  The second part prohibits the use of military or quasi-military forces to accomplish the same thing.  The third part is necessary, because prior Constitutional provisions allow for government intervention in the cases of rebellion or insurrection, and leave it up to the government to determine what constitutes same. Since it has become apparent that the people who are supposed to be looking after our best interests as a nation are more concerned with maintaining and increasing their own power than they are with the public good, they can't be trusted to use reason and good judgement in reacting to public outcry.

Think about it.

Mariner.