Dear Congressmen,


How many times have we all heard the advice and chastisement, “if you want something changed, write your congressman?” On this eve of September, eleven days before the anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damage to the Pentagon and the loss of many lives, I want to express my patriotism in honor of those who have fallen by exercising my 1st amendment right to petition the Congress of the united States of America in an effort to return you to your station and duties as elected representatives.


You are on the brink of omitting your duty to those who elected you by neglecting to exercise your authority and maintain a balance of power in the united States of America. The result of this negligence will not only cause the death of thousands of men and women from America but those all over the world.


I am not going to ask you to perform a small thing. I am going to ask you to perform a colossal miracle that the great Montesquieu did not believe was possible in a republic once its laws were no longer enforced. He believed that a monarch and an aristocracy had a chance to return to the execution of the law. But in a republic, he believed that once law was abandoned, the republic is lost for that is all it is composed of. He did not refer to traffic laws and tax laws, but rather to the constructive laws of a commonwealth that establish flow of authority to act.


In a time when major events have occurred and major actions are under consideration, it would do well to remember the events of our forefathers who performed daily miracles culminating in 1776, 1783 and in 1789. The first miracle was to declare independence from the whole wide world. The second was in securing that independence. And the third was to construct a form of government new to the entire world that was meant to prevail beyond this very day. You can pretend that these are ordinary times for the mere use of a superior technology as the ancients did. Or you can you can muster up just a little of the courage and sacrifice that your people are going to be asked to provide, and stand up for your nation given to you by our forefathers and insist upon the conformance of every officer, agent, and representative to the law of this land.


I, as a mere citizen, can and will illustrate herein that further congressional neglect of the constitutional law of this land will result in a condition more heinous than any dreamed up by the wildest international terrorist. I believe that Congress alone has a slight chance to reverse pending events and make yourself and all citizens of the united States a beacon of justice, integrity and power through out the world as it was in 1776.


The real “state of the union” is dissolved, and I will momentarily prove that herein, but you, as Congressmen, have a way to restore the union, and the blessings that accompany it, to every inhabitant of the world. You need only do one thing that will go far towards its restoration. Congress must insist, demand, and enforce its authority to Declare War.


President Bush’s administration has said that George Bush does not need to seek “Congressional approval” for an attack on Saddam Hussein. They have listed several reasons they think and believe that Bush has the authority to wage war against Iraq. None of the reasons hold because nothing can give authority to President Bush to pursue war with Iraq without a full declaration of war from Congress. President Bush’s administration said they were considering consulting with Congress but felt it was not necessary. This kind of language is the declaration of intent to usurp the authority of the Congress of the united States. No amount of previous violation of the requirement of a declaration of war by Congress can modify, or legalize another violation.




The president or Executive was given power to be the Commander in Chief of the army and navy and the state militias when called into actual service of the United States (Article II Section 2).  But Congress retained the power to call them into service by a declaration of war (Article I Section 8).  Congress also retained the power of calling forth of the militia to execute laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions (Article I Section 8).


The President of the United States is not commander-in-Chief of the armed forces or the militia without the acts of Congress.  For overseas action this requires a Declaration of War.  For Domestic service this requires the calling of the militia by the Congress or application by the governor of a State against invasion or domestic violence (Article IV section 4).


Without the said acts of Congress the President of the U.S. cannot order a soldier or officer to cross the street much less fight over seas or wear a U.N. uniform.  Special Forces soldier Michael New is on appeal at this moment for refusing to wear such a uniform on Constitutional grounds.


A provision or an amendment to allow the President to issue "Executive Orders" to send troops overseas without Congress declaring war is not to be found.  The forefathers refused to grant this power to our president because of their experience with King George issuing "Royal Instructions."  Therefore, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, etc, etc, are all in violation of the United States Constitution.




There is no constitutional basis for "police actions or patrolling for terrorists."  The very phrase "police action" should have struck fear, alarm and outrage into the hearts of every American.  Police actions violate our own Constitution and the sovereignty of other nations.  We can understand the reasoning of James Madison in limiting the powers of the president and in the denial of funding for a federal standing army.


Alexander Hamilton clarified the limitations of power on the office of Commander-in-Chief in his Federalist Letter # 69:


"The President is to be the "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States....In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York.  The most material points of difference are these: - First.  The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into actual service of the Union.  The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions....Second.  The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.  In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it.  It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies - all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."[1]




Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Sherman and Mr. Wilson all voiced an opposition to granting the power of war and peace to the President or executive with no argument from the Constitutional Convention.  Madison's notes record Mr. Pinckney as stating a short consensus of the June 1st, 1787 Constitutional debate:


"Mr. Pinckney was for a vigorous Executive but was afraid the Executive powers of the existing Congress might extend to peace and war and etc., etc., which would render the Executive a monarchy, of the worst kind, to wit an elective one."[2]


One of the most essential differences between a monarch and a president or executive is the power to send troops or "make war."  In other words, it appears that the American office of President is now worse than kings of other lands in that he is elected and more corruptible than monarchs who rest more secure in their inheritance.  Mr. Sherman is recorded as holding the following opinion:


"he considered the Executive magistracy as nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the Legislature into effect, that the person or persons ought to be appointed by and accountable to the Legislature only, which was the depository of the supreme will of the Society."[3]





An amendment to allow the funding of a standing federal army we have maintained for 50 years is not to be found in the Constitution and therefore is a violation of the law of the land.  Further, all acts of the several Presidents and Congresses and Supreme Courts to persuade the people otherwise or to force them to maintain a standing federal army is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Article I Section 8:


“The Congress shall have Power....to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;"


And to assure you that this continual standing federal army was never intended by the founding fathers, I present the words of James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates:


"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate.  Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body.  A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.  The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.  Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.  Throughout all Europe, the armies kept under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.  It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke.  The insular situation of Great Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe.  It has rendered less defense necessary, and admitted a kind of defense which could not be used for the purpose of oppression."[4]



The only continuously standing, funded and well regulated armies allowed by the Constitution are the State Militias as set forth in the 2nd Amendment thereto.  This provision was added by the States prior to ratification of the Constitution in anticipation of just what has happened in America - full scale violation and usurpation of power by centralized government.


The Constitution does allow for the funding of a federal navy but no other branch of the military.  It should be no wonder that the term militia has been denigrated by central power because it is the only constitutionally recognized land force that can be continuously funded by tax dollars.  The individual states alone may fund peace time standing armies.




It is not the sole job of each state to raise and support a state militia but the authority for training the militia is vested in each state.  Article 1 Section 8:


"The Congress shall have power...to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."


It should be clear that after two years of a declared war all federal troops must return to their respective states and all military equipment should be dispersed among the states equally based upon exposure to threat, population and past contribution.  Each state must maintain such equipment for future use.


Rather than construct an army of agents in America under the banner and guise of the “Patriot Act” and “Homeland Security,” would it not be legal and more effective to raise the militia of every state under the direct control of the officers of those states? The combined police forces in America under the leadership of the President of the united States is nothing more than a domestic army for patrolling the citizens. This is strictly forbidden by the forefathers of this land.


Now this brings us to a most difficult situation. The result of the negligence of the united States Congress to enforce the Constitutional Law of this land, is nothing short of the complete dissolution of the united States of America. The logic and simplicity and force of John Locke’s five ways to dissolve any nation form within is inescapable and will surely make itself brighter as time goes on. But, as you can plainly see, we are in a state of dissolution at this very moment. Remember that our forefathers had read and studied and memorized the writing of John Locke.



JOHN LOCKE (1689 Of Civil Government)


"Besides this over-turning from without, Governments are dissolved from within," [5]




"First, When the Legislative is altered  The Constitution of the Legislative is the first and fundamental Act of Society, whereby provision is made for the Continuation of their Union, under the Direction of Persons, and Bonds of Laws, made by Persons authorized thereunto, by the Consent and Appointment of the People, without which no one man, or number of Men, amongst them, can have Authority of making Laws, that shall be binding to the rest.  When any one or more, shall take upon them to make Laws, whom the People have not appointed so to do, they make Laws without Authority, which the People are not therefore bound to Obey; by which means they come again to be out of the Subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new Legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without Authority would impose any thing upon them."(407)




"First, that when such a single Person, or Prince sets up his own arbitrary Will in place of the Laws, which are the will of the Society, declared by the Legislative, then the Legislative is changed." (408)

President Bush’s intent to attack Iraq without a declaration of War from Congress, the Supreme Legislative Body of America, is certainly the making of his own arbitrary will in place of the laws and will of citizens of the united States and their representatives. This presents an opportunity for the Congress of the united States to restore the law and restore the united States of America. Without a full Declaration of War against Iraq, the united States is in more danger from tyranny, usurpation and anarchy here at home than we are from terrorism abroad.




"Secondly, When the Prince hinders the Legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends, for which it was constituted, the Legislative is altered."(409)

Is it not the intention of President Bush to hinder the Congress from acting while on his own will plans to attack Iraq, by releasing statements that he does not need “Congressional approval?” Therefore, he will not ask Congress for a legal Declaration of War. At best, he will make a presentation of strategy and technique and fail to ask for your vote on a Declaration of War. In this way, he believes he can avoid the need to “make a case” for an attack on Iraq. Congress must insist that any action on the President’s part to command a movement of troops without a Declaration of War is a crime against the laws of the people of the united States and reinforces its present state of dissolution.




"Thirdly, When by the arbitrary Power of the Prince, the Electors, or ways of Election are altered, without the Consent, and contrary to the common Interest of the People, there also the Legislative is altered."(409)




"Fourthly, the Delivery also of the People into the Subjection of a foreign Power, either by Prince, or by the Legislative, is certainly a change of the Legislative, and so a Dissolution of the Government.  For the end why People entered into Society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent Society, to be governed by its own Laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the Power of another."(409-410)

All this talk about the “coalition of nations” and submission to the rules and regulations of the United Nations is a Delivery of the American People into the Subjection of a foreign Power under which rules the citizens of the united States did not agree. The further attempt to force a sovereign nation such as Iraq to conform to any UN rule is also an act of tyranny against a foreign nation. We cannot escape dissolution of the united States by turning to the United Nations or to coalitions of nations.




"There is one Way more whereby such a Government may be dissolved, and that is, when he who has the Supream executive Power, neglects and abandons that Charge, so that the Laws already made can no longer be put in Execution.  This is demonstratively to reduce all to Anarchy, and so effectually to dissolve the Government."(410-411)


In this case “he” who holds the Supreme executive Power is President George W. Bush. He has abandon and neglected the execution of the Constitutional laws of the united States. He further intends to violate those same laws and convince Congress that he needs not bring himself under your Supreme Legislative authority and will of the People. The weight of the inescapable logic of John Locke, written 300 years ago, rests on your shoulders. You see that there are problems bigger than terrorism in the world. Yours is to hold the united States together as one nation under God, indivisible.


God bless you with the joy and excitement of the opportunity to save America from the unavoidable conclusion of the path we walk, and to rise to the occasion and be more than mere occupants of an abandoned office. But, in case you think we have created for ourselves a trap we cannot escape I leave you with the eternal words of Liberty penned by the Father of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams:


"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."[6]


Anarchy, terror, nor tyranny and usurpation will prevail in the Kingdom of Heaven established upon the face of the earth by the Lord Jesus Christ for he will help those who seek him and his justice. For Christ is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory of it. And the principles of governing His Kingdom on Earth have been well established by His disciples through hundreds of years as we have seen herein.


Sincerely Yours,


Ronald F. Avery

[1] Alexander Hamilton, ed., Clinton Rossiter The Federalist Papers (Penguin Group 375 Hudson St., New York, NY 10014 USA, 1961) 417-418

[2] James Madison, ed., Ralph Ketcham The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates (Penguin Group 375 Hudson St., New York, NY 10014 USA, 1986) 42

[3] Ibid.


[4] Ibid, 97

[5] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed., Peter Laslett (Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 1988) 407

[6] Samuel Adams, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America - Christian Self-Government  ed., Verna M. Hall, (The Foundation for American Christian Education Box 27035, San Francisco, California 94127) 367