MK3 BLOG

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 20, 2025

“We are not such asses as to let them ride us as they please.”

That was the fiery attitude of a 19-year-old Alexander Hamilton in 1774 – and it perfectly explained the principle behind the economic shutdown the colonies were implementing in response to the Coercive Acts: they refused to be bullied into submission.

Today, a “shutdown” is a political game designed to manipulate the people. But the original American shutdown was a weapon of revolution.

This is the story of the Continental Association.

COORDINATED ECONOMIC SHUTDOWN

On October 20th, 1774, the First Continental Congress made it official when they passed the Continental Association, long considered the first of the founding four documents along with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution for these United States.

The document’s opening line wasn’t a polite request; it was a diagnosis of the threat.

“To obtain Redress of these Grievances, which threaten Destruction to the Lives, Liberty, and Property, of his Majesty’s Subjects in North America”

And then, the prescription: a muilti-part plan of economic warfare, which they considered their only “peaceable” option.

“we are of Opinion that a Non-importation, Non-consumption, and Non-exportation Agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual, and peaceable Measure; and therefore we do, for ourselves and the Inhabitants of the several Colonies whom we represent, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred Ties of Virtue, Honour, and Love of our Country.”

This agreement created a four-pronged attack designed to cripple the vaunted British economic system.

1. Non-Importation

They started with a total ban on British imports. The Association’s language was clear: if a product came from or even just passed through Great Britain or Ireland, it was prohibited.

“That from and after the first Day of December next we will not import into British America, from Great Britain or Ireland, any Goods, Wares, or Merchandise whatsoever, or from any other Place, any such Goods, Wares, or Merchandise, as shall have been exported from Great Britain or Ireland.”

And that was just the headline. The full text was a hit list including East India tea and indigo, molasses, coffee and more from the Caribbean, and wines from Madeira and the Western Islands.

Alexander Hamilton – the good one we should’ve gotten years later – explained the choice: boycott or war.

“This being the case, we can have no resource but in a restriction of our trade, or in a resistance vi & armis. It is impossible to conceive any other alternative. Our congress, therefore, have imposed what restraint they thought necessary. Those, who condemn or clamour against it, do nothing more, nor less, than advise us to be slaves.”

2. Non-Consumption

The second prong took the boycott from the ports to the people. It wasn’t enough to simply turn down British goods from arriving; colonists had to stop buying and using the goods that had already arrived.

The agreement first took aim at tea, the most politically charged product of all.

“From this Day, we will not purchase or use any Tea imported on Account of the East India Company, or any on which a Duty hath been or shall be paid; and, from and after the first Day of March next, we will not purchase or use any East India Tea whatever.”

Then, it expanded this boycott to include every single product on the non-importation list.

“Nor will we, nor shall any Person for or under us, purchase or use any of those Goods, Wares, or Merchandise, we have agreed not to import.”

3. Frugality and Industry

The Association wasn’t just about boycotting. The third prong was about replacing British goods and culture with American alternatives.

“We will, in our several Stations, encourage Frugality Economy, and Industry; and promote Agriculture, Arts, and the Manufactures of this Country, especially that of Wool.”

This real AMERICA FIRST shutdown was much more than just trade policy; it was a cultural rebellion. They also chose to starve out British culture, cutting off the expensive, extravagant habits that drained colonial wealth and establish a leaner, more virtuous way of life that could survive the coming siege.

“And will discountenance and discourage every Species of Extravagance and Dissipation, especially all Horse-racing, and all Kinds of Gaming, Cock-fighting, Exhibitions of Shows, Plays, and other expensive Diversions and Entertainments.”

The strategy even extended to funerals.

“None of us, or any of our Families, will go into any farther Mourning Dress than a black Crape or Riband on the Arm or Hat for Gentlemen, and a black Riband and Necklace for Ladies, and we will discontinue the giving of Gloves and Scarfs at Funerals.”

4. Export Ban

The final prong was the colonists’ ultimate threat: a total export ban. They put the ban on a timer, giving London a deadline of September 10, 1775, to repeal not just the Coercive Acts, but a whole decade’s worth of unconstitutional taxes and statutes.

“The said Acts, and Parts of Acts of the British Parliament herein after mentioned, are not repealed, we will not, directly or indirectly, export any Merchandise, or Commodity whatsoever, to Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies, except Rice, to Europe.”

The single exception for rice was no accident. It was a calculated political compromise pushed by South Carolina’s pragmatic delegates, led by John Rutledge. The move was so contentious it was fiercely opposed by their own more radical colleague, Christopher Gadsden, who demanded shared sacrifice. But rice was an economic lifeline for South Carolina and Georgia. Without that carve-out, the powerful planters would have walked away, and the united colonial front would have collapsed before it began.

A UNANIMOUS VOTE

The groundwork for the Association was laid weeks earlier, on September 16, 1774. That day, an express rider from Boston named Paul Revere galloped down 2nd Street in Philadelphia carrying the Suffolk Resolves from Massachusetts. The document was a blueprint for resistance: noncompliance with the Coercive Acts, defiance of British courts, sheriffs refusing to enforce British laws, and outright tax resistance.

The Resolves also proposed the strategy that would unite the colonies: a widespread boycott of British goods to retaliate for the shutdown of Boston’s port.

And the very next day, Congress unanimously approved the resolves in its first official act.

Ten days later, as recorded by John Adams in his notes of the debates, Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee moved to turn that endorsement into action.

“Mr. Lee made a Mo[tion] for a Non Importation.”

The blueprint for this motion was the Virginia Association of 1769, a boycott drafted by George Mason and introduced by George Washington. It was passed after Virginia’s royal governor dissolved the House of Burgesses, forcing the members to defiantly regroup and push forward without royal permission.

Mike Maharrey identified this move as the key shift from operating within the British system to creating an independent one:

“By regrouping outside official channels, the Burgesses took a revolutionary step – organizing independent political action without royal approval. This laid the groundwork for self-government.”

JUSTIFY A REVOLUTION

Virginia wasn’t the only assembly shut down by the British. They repeatedly used government shutdowns as a political weapon to punish the people and manipulate them into compliance, including New York and South Carolina.

But with the Coercive Acts, they went for the kill shot. Under the Massachusetts Government Act of 1774, they outlawed all meetings without approval from the crown.

“No meeting shall be called by the select men, or at the request of any number of freeholders of any township, district, or precinct, without the leave of the governor, or, in his absence, of the lieutenant-governor, in writing, expressing the special business of the said meeting, first had and obtained.”

John Adams said this ALONE justified revolution..

“A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution—to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”

The First Continental Congress debated for weeks, but the question wasn’t over whether to resist, buthow. For weeks, the delegates argued logistics: when the boycott should start, what it should include, and whether to ban exports.

By October 14, they had the primary framework set, and shifted to pass the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. This was a full list of grievances, the specific British acts that needed to be repealed, a declaration of rights, and a plan of action, promising to follow up with a “non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation association.”

For Alexander Hamilton, the choice was simple. The temporary cost of a commercial shutdown was nothing compared to the permanent cost of living under despotism. He argued that anyone who couldn’t see that was either a moral coward or a fool.

“No person, that is not lost to every generous feeling of humanity, or that is not stupidly blind to his own interest, could bear to offer himself and posterity as victims at the shrine of despotism, in preference to enduring the short lived inconveniencies that may result from an abridgment, or even entire suspension of commerce.”

ENFORCEMENT

But without enforcement, a declaration is just words on paper. To give the Association teeth, Congress included a revolutionary enforcement system.

“That a Committee be chosen in every County, City, and Town, by those who are qualified to vote for representatives in the Legislature, whose Business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all Persons touching this Association.”

When a violation was confirmed, the committee’s power was in public shaming. They were instructed to:

“Cause the truth of the case to be published in the Gazette, to the End that all such foes to the rights of British America may be publickly known and universally contemned as the Enemies of American Liberty.”

Once a person was publicly named, the community’s role was to completely ostracize them.

“And thenceforth we respectively will break off all Dealings with him, or her.”

To show the seriousness of their unity, Article 14 applied the same approach to any non-compliant colony:

“And we do farther agr[ee and resolve, that we will have] no Trade, Commerce, Dealings, o[r intercourse whatsoever, with any] Colony or Province in North Ame[rica, which shall not accede to, or] which shall hereafter violate, thi[s association, but will hold them as] unworthy of the Rights of Free[men, and as inimical to the liberties of] their Country.”

UNION ESTABLISHED

All twelve colonies present voted to pass the Association. Georgia, which had not sent delegates, joined the following year.

This was the moment the American union was truly born. For the first time, all thirteen colonies formally agreed to a single, coordinated, and enforceable policy against Britain.

Nearly a century later, Abraham Lincoln made this same connection: the union started with the Association. But the irony with his observation is thick, because he was making this case to argue against secession in a country birthed in secession.

“The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.”

MAJOR IMPACT

According to historian T.H. Breen, the Association didn’t just create a union on paper; it sparked a revolutionary takeover of government from the ground up.

“During the months following the announcement of the Association, in October 1774, the insurgency gathered momentum. Indeed, no sooner had the Continental Congress authorized this infrastructure for enforcing a commercial boycott than hundreds of committees throughout America seized control of local government, quickly becoming the face of revolution.”

These new local committees had one primary mission: enforce the boycott. As historian Alan Taylor documents, the economic impact was immediate and devastating to British merchants. In just a few months, imports from Britain collapsed by over 85 percent.

“The committees proved remarkably effective, for the value of British imports plum­meted from about £3,000,000 in 1774 to just £220JJ000 during the first six months of 1775.”

This economic pain sparked fury from British loyalists. The Rev. Samuel Seabury, writing as “A Farmer,” voiced the establishment’s outrage and condescension.

“Can we think to threaten, and bully, and frighten the supreme government of the nation into a compliance with our demands? Can we expect to force a submission to our peevish and petulant humours, by exciting clamors and riots in England? We ought to know the temper and spirit, the power and strength of the nation better.”

Alexander Hamilton issued a blistering, point-by-point response to Seabury. First, he flatly rejected the loyalist’s condescending caricature of the colonists as childish bullies.

“No, gentle Sir. We neither desire, nor endeavour to threaten, bully, or frighten any persons into a compliance with our demands. We have no peevish and petulant humours to be submitted to.”

Hamilton continued with one of the best quotes of the entire Revolution.

“All we aim at, is to convince your high and mighty masters, the ministry, that we are not such asses as to let them ride us as they please.”

He concluded with a defiant promise, declaring that the colonists knew the value of liberty and would not surrender it without a fight – an attitude that’s seriously lacking today.

“We are determined to shew them, that we know the value of freedom; nor shall their rapacity extort, that inestimable jewel from us, without a manly and virtuous struggle.” 

Source: The Tenth Amendment Center

MK3|MK3Blog| Oct. 18, 2025

“An Act Against the Constitution is Void”

The American Revolution kicked off in 1761 with a single principle from James Otis Jr.: an unconstitutional law is NO LAW AT ALL.

Any government act exceeding its legitimate authority is void the moment it is passed. It has no more legal power than a law passed by a foreign government.

Call it what it is: usurpation, a theft of power. And stolen power is not to be obeyed, it is to be resisted.

HIERARCHY OF POWER

Government possesses no inherent power. It is a created agent, and as George Mason explained, any authority it holds comes from its boss: the people.

“All power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from, the people.”

The people didn’t just hand government a blank check. As John Jay made clear, they gave it the Constitution: a strict, enumerated list of what it is authorized to do.

“The proposed government is to be the government of the people; all its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but such as the people commit to them.”

This was so essential to the structure of the constitution they made it explicit with the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson called the foundation of the entire system.

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’”

James Wilson then locked in this hierarchy of power: the people at the top, the Constitution as their instructions, and the government at the bottom.

“As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures; so the people are superior to our constitutions.”

USURPATION

That hierarchy reveals the crime. Thomas Paine distinguished legitimate, delegated authority from theft.

“All delegated power is trust. All assumed power is usurpation.”

Usurpation, by definition, is an exercise of unauthorized power. In essence, stealing power from those who rightly hold it, the people. A common dictionary definition of the era came from Thomas Sheridan’s 1789 A Complete Dictionary of the English Language:

“Forcible, unjust, illegal seizure or possession.” 

A usurper is “One who seizes or possesses that to which he has no right.”

The Declaration of Independence demonstrates this view. Most people today refer to the list of charges against the king as “grievances.” But that word isn’t even in the document.

Instead, the founders used phrases like “A long train of abuses and usurpations” and “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations” to define their opposition to unconstitutional powers like the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Coercive Acts and so much more.

VOID

Usurpation justified a revolution, secession, and a long war for Independence. But the Founders knew any government could be just as dangerous. James Iredell issued the same warning against their own.

“Any law not warranted by the Constitution is a barefaced usurpation.”

St. George Tucker broadened it beyond just legislation to any exercise of power beyond constitutional limits.

“Every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation.”

This is the legal doctrine of void ab initio. It’s a legal nullity from the beginning, and never rises to the level of law, and 3rd Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth applied that principle to the constitution.

“If they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void.”

As James Wilson made clear, this means government has no legal authority to enforce such acts.

“That a void act can confer no authority upon those, who proceed under colour of it, is a self evident proposition.”

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson took no prisoners. A usurpation of power – an unconstitutional law – is no law at all.

“Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Even Alexander Hamilton took this position on the supremacy clause. Only acts in pursuance of delegated constitutional powers are supreme.

“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land.”

PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICE

The obvious objection to all this: government doesn’t care about theory or constitutional principles. They’ll do what they want anyway.

Hamilton continued with the practical application – acts beyond the limits of the constitution don’t stop themselves.

“These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

Complying with stolen power just encourages more theft. That’s why James Iredell explained that a free people would resist any such acts.

“The people will resist if government usurps power not delegated to it.”

Roger Sherman explained how that works in a union of states under the Constitution.

When the people refuse to comply, and the states back them up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called “laws,” regulations and orders down our throats.

“All acts of the Congress not warranted by the constitution would be void. Nor could they be enforced contrary to the sense of a majority of the States.”

That’s constitutional enforcement in action: people refuse, states end enforcement, federal overreach fails.

James Otis helped launch the Revolution on one foundational principle: unconstitutional acts do not rise to the level of “law.” The fiery Anti-Federalist Luther Martin tied it all together: When government steals unauthorized power, resistance is duty.

“By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted.”

MK3|Oct. 6,2025

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT LIKES IT OR NOT

John Dickinson understood what schools don’t teach – the people are the ones to enforce their own constitution.

“IT IS THEIR DUTY TO WATCH, AND THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE CARE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED; or in the Roman phrase on perilous occasions – To PROVIDE, THAT THE REPUBLIC RECEIVE NO DAMAGE.”

Dickinson wasn’t a radical by temperament. He was careful, deliberate. But he knew even the best Constitution would mean nothing if the people didn’t step up to enforce it themselves.

That warning rings louder than ever today. Politicians in both parties burn through trillions, spy without warrants, and hand out permission slips for your natural right of self-defense. They want obedience – not vigilance.

The Constitution can’t enforce itself.
Never did and never will.

That’s a big part of the reason why the Tenth Amendment Center exists. For nearly 20 years we’ve reminded the people of their duty – a duty to protect and defend their own Constitution and their own liberty, whether the government likes it, or not.

But TAC runs only on your support. No government funds. No billionaire strings. Just people like you who understand Dickinson’s call: when the constitution is violated, the answer is to “be instantly found … before the supreme sovereignty of the people” 

And Dickinson was far from alone. Samuel Adams, for example, also reminded us that defending our constitution and liberty isn’t just a good idea – but a moral imperative – a duty.

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

That’s not a summary for a book report. It’s a warning for us right today – and every single day.

Power always grows. Governments will never restrain themselves – and relying on them to do so – has given us the largest government in history.

The only way to turn things around is get back to the foundation. That’s why we take it right back to the founders and the old revolutionaries: The duty to keep government in check belongs to us.

Concordia res parvae crescunt

(small things grow great by concord) 

Source:Tenth Amendment Center 

MK3|Sep. 5,2025

“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” 

George Mason cut to the heart of it: the militia was not a government creation, but the people themselves.

That simple truth has been twisted, ignored, or totally forgotten.

Say the word “militia” today and most people look at you like you’re a fringe nutcase. But the founding generation saw it differently. They viewed a well-armed and well-trained people as the backbone of liberty, the essential security of a free republic.

The Constitution’s militia clauses were supposed to secure that principle. The Anti-Federalists warned they would do the opposite – and time has proven them right.

CITIZEN MILITIA VS. STANDING ARMY

This story really begins with a principle most Americans have forgotten, and most were never even taught: the choice between a citizen militia and a permanent professional standing army.

Henry Knox, Washington’s Secretary of War, reinforced this: in a free society, the ultimate safeguard had to be an armed people, themselves.

“An energetic national militia is to be regarded as the Capital security of a free republic; and not a standing army, forming a distinct class in the community.”

That view was widespread because almost the entire founding generation viewed standing armies, especially large permanent ones, as one of the greatest dangers to liberty. A perfect example of this view came from the great revolutionary war hero Joseph Warren.

“It is further certain, from a consideration of the nature of mankind, as well as from constant experience, that standing armies always endanger the liberty of the subject.”

The same warning carried forward to the ratification debates over the Constitution. “A Democratic Federalist,” possibly Samuel Bryan, pointed to the long record of history. From every angle, the conclusion was the same: a standing army was the single greatest danger.

“The experience of past ages, and the result of the enquiries of the best and most celebrated patriots have taught us to dread a standing army above all earthly evils.”

And Tench Coxe drove the distinction home. A militia of the people worked for the people, defending their own freedom. A professional army was nothing but the tool of those in power. And people in power always find ways to use that power for the worst.

“There is a wide difference between the troops of such a commonwealth as ours, founded on equal and unalterable principles, and those of a regal government, where ambition and oppression are the profession of the king. In the first case, a military officer is the occasional servant of the people, employed for their defence; in the second, he is the ever ready instrument to execute the schemes of conquest or oppression, with which the mind of his royal master may be disturbed.”

MILITIA IN THE CONSTITUTION

James Madison tied the whole question of liberty to the militia itself. What others had warned about in theory, he pressed as a principle to be written into the Constitution itself.

“As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them, by an effectual provision for a good Militia.”

Tench Coxe tied those principles together into one clear doctrine. The militia was the people themselves, and he affirmed Madison’s view that they made a standing army unnecessary.

“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary.”

He explained why. An armed population, by sheer numbers, could act as a check on regular troops, because the geographic situation of the country meant there would seldom be many of them in the first place.

“They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to overawe them – for our detached situation will seldom give occasion to raise an army, though a few scattered companies may often be necessary.”

The framers sought to write these principles into the Constitution, where the word “militia” is included six times.

Article II, Section 2 made the president commander in chief not only of the army and navy, but also of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 explained when that could happen. Congress could provide for calling forth the militia only in three situations: “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Clause 16 delegated to Congress the 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.”

That last power would become the heart of the coming debate.

The Bill of Rights added two more mentions of the word militia. The Fifth Amendment exempted cases “arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”

The Second Amendment put the principle beyond dispute, tying the people’s right to arms directly to the survival of a free state.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

THE BIG DEBATE

During the ratification debates, there was strong opposition to giving Congress power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. As Federal Farmer wrote, the starting point was clear: liberty required the great mass of the people themselves to remain armed.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”

Patrick Henry pressed the point even harder. Liberty could not be secured by a portion of the people.

“The great object is, that every man be armed”

That demand ran headlong into Alexander Hamilton’s approach. He began by acknowledging the opposition’s concern that federal power over the militia could be used to form a select corps, loyal to government instead of the people.

“By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power.”

Hamilton then made his own claim. A general militia, he said, was not the safeguard of liberty but an impractical and dangerous burden.

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.”

In one stroke he dismissed the idea that ordinary citizens should give their time and effort to arms and training, calling such effort a nuisance to be avoided.

“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

THE SELECT MILITIA

The Anti-Federalists repeatedly warned that any plan allowing a “select corps,” or what they called a “select militia,” could be extremely dangerous. In Pennsylvania, John Smilie warned that this would, in practice, be a standing army.

“Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army”

And if men hostile to liberty gained power, they would have every reason to cripple the one institution that could resist them. That meant abolishing the general militia altogether.

“Or – Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all.”

Either way, the stage would be set for the ultimate danger.

“When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”

George Mason explained how easily this could happen. Congress would not need to seize weapons outright. It could let the militia wither through neglect.

“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before. That is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia, and the State Governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them”

But Mason saw something even more sinister -what if this wasn’t accidental neglect, but the whole point?

“Should the national Government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing standing army”

Even Hamilton conceded that the scope of power was wide open. No one could predict what Congress might choose to do.

“What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen”

Mason brought the issue back to first principles. In 1788, there was no ambiguity –  the militia still meant the people themselves – all of them.

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

Mason drove it home with a warning that would prove to be prophetic. To grant Congress control over organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia was to guarantee a select militia – and with it, every danger the Anti-Federalists had warned against.

“But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected.”

THE PUSH FOR AMENDMENTS

This fear of Congress neglecting the militia, or even disarming the people and leaving only a select corps, was a driving force behind the push for amendments.

At Virginia’s ratifying convention, they proposed one in unmistakable terms:

“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.”

New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island all ratified with nearly the same recommended amendment.

Years later, Thomas Jefferson recalled just how urgent the issue had been. From Europe, he pressed James Madison for amendments to guarantee that the Constitution itself would help prevent that great threat to liberty – a standing army – by securing the militia.

“I wrote strongly to mr Madison urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the states of all rights not specifically granted to the union.”

THE WARNING CAME TRUE

Remember George Mason’s warning about Congress turning the militia into a narrow class, while exempting those with the greatest means? A century later, that prediction became law.

The Militia Act of 1903, what most people today call the Dick Act, narrowed the definition of the militia from “the whole people” to a specific segment of the people.

“The militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age”

From there the Act went even further, creating the very “select militia” Mason and the Anti-Federalists had warned would destroy liberty.

“And shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia … and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.”

And then, of course – to ensure it’s just like the standing army we were warned about, Congress ensured that politicians were completely exempt.

“That the Vice-President of the United States, the officers, judicial and executive, of the Government of the United States, the members and officers of each House of Congress … shall be exempted from militia duty, without regard to age”

THE ONE-TWO PUNCH

The militia was, and always will be, the people themselves.

But just as the Anti-Federalists warned, once Congress was given the power to organize, arm, and discipline only part of the militia, the results were inevitable.

Today we live with the one-two punch they predicted:

1. A select militia – the National Guard – is treated as nothing more than an arm of the permanent standing army.
2. Tens of millions of Americans are not armed today.

Source in part: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/  

MK3|Oct. 4,2025

The following piece is based off a report that I have been working on for about 2.5 years now. The scaled down 18 page version of this report can be found and downloaded from my Dropbox using this link.

America’s operating manual starts with three words—We the People. That’s not poetry; it’s a job description. This post breaks down what citizens own in the constitutional order, what we owe in return, and how our responsibilities are changing right now.

1) Why “We the People” isn’t a slogan — it’s chain of command

The Constitution flips the old model. Power flows up from citizens, not down from rulers. The Framers designed a republic that assumes ordinary people can supervise government — not as spectators, but as participants: choosing representatives, policing overreach, and correcting course when institutions drift. Translation: if citizens go passive, the system stalls or gets captured.

Core idea: legitimacy = consent of the governed → delivered through speech, press, assembly, petition, juries, and the vote.

2) Who counts as a “citizen,” and why it matters

The original Constitution left citizenship fuzzy. The Civil War amendments fixed that.

• 14th Amendment (1868): Birthright citizenship. If you’re born or naturalized here (and under U.S. jurisdiction), you’re in.

• Privileges/Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection: States can’t play games with your basic civil status.

• Naturalization power: Congress defines the path in; the arc since 1790 has broadened access.

Bottom line: Citizen = full member of the political community with durable claims on the Constitution — and irreversible ownership of this system’s successes and failures.

3) The citizen’s bill of tools (rights you use to govern your governors)

These aren’t ornamental. They’re the instruments you use to operate the republic.

• Speak/Publish/Assemble/Petition (1A): Pressure valves and power drivers. Use them.

• Due process & fair trials (4th–6th): Keeps state power honest.

• Juries (Art. III, 6th, 7th): Ordinary people decide facts and, at times, temper the law.

• Keep and bear arms (2A): Historically tied to the citizen-soldier; interpreted today as an individual right.

• Move, travel, reside (Art. IV & 14A): You’re a national citizen first; states can’t turn you into a foreigner at their borders.

Practical reading: These rights are your levers. If you’re not pulling them, someone else is — on you.

4) The franchise: how “We” actually hire and fire

The 1787 text didn’t guarantee a vote. The people forced the issue over 150+ years:

• 15th: No race/color bars.

• 17th: People (not legislatures) elect Senators.

• 19th: Women vote.

• 23rd: D.C. gets electors.

• 24th: No poll taxes.

• 26th: 18-year-olds vote.

The courts layered in one person, one vote and nuked poll taxes at the state level. Real talk: the fight never ends — registration rules, district lines, and ID policies still shape who makes it to the booth. If you don’t track those rules locally, you’re leaving power on the table.

Action list (every election cycle):

1. Check registration & deadlines.

2. Track precinct changes and ID requirements.

3. Learn your ballot before you show up.

4. Vote in primaries and locals (where most policy is actually set).

5) Jury service: the citizen’s only mandatory constitutional duty

Jury duty isn’t an inconvenience; it’s the moment the Constitution hands you the controls. You judge the facts, weigh the law, and — together — deliver the community’s verdict. That’s raw, uncut sovereignty. Show up, pay attention, take it seriously.

Pro tip for instructors: use a short mock trial to teach burden of proof, unanimity, and deliberation norms. Adults learn it fast when they do it.

6) Duties no one lists but everyone owes

• Obey the law & pay taxes: Baseline for ordered liberty; change bad laws the right way.

• Defend the country if called: Selective Service exists for a reason, even with an all-volunteer force.

• Get informed: A republic cannot survive a civics vacuum.

• Practice civil discourse: Argue hard, but don’t dehumanize. Persuasion beats purification.

• Serve outside politics: Voluntary associations (PTA, church groups, rescue squads, veterans orgs) knit the republic together.

Teacher’s angle: Open class with a 10-question civics quiz. Then teach to the misses. It’s humbling, memorable, and fixes the gaps fast.

7) The 21st-century shift: digital citizenship, new pitfalls

Upside: instant organizing, direct pressure on officials, public records at your fingertips.
Downside: misinformation, echo chambers, performative rage.

Your move:

• Habitually verify before sharing.

• Follow at least one high-quality source you often disagree with.

• Treat social feeds like a tool, not a home — do the work offline too: town halls, school boards, juries, service.

8) Where the Court keeps reshaping your lane

• Voting: Shelby County, Brnovich — the ground rules keep moving; stay keyed to your state’s changes.

• Speech & money: Citizens United amplified independent spending; citizens must counter with organizing, not wishful thinking.

• Maps: Rucho kicked extreme gerrymandering back to politics — meaning reform is on you (state constitutions, commissions, ballot measures).

Translation: litigation sets the arena; citizenship wins the game. Learn how to litigate and put it into practice.

9) Quick-reference cheat sheet (handout-ready)

Citizen powers (use them):

• Vote • Petition • Assemble • Speak/Publish • Sit on juries • Run for office • Serve in associations

Citizen duties (own them):

• Obey law • Pay taxes • Show up for jury duty • Register for Selective Service (as required) • Stay informed • Engage civilly • Serve community

Lifetime habits that scale your impact:

• Vote every cycle (local > national for daily life).

• Read one primary source/week (Constitution, statutes, court summaries).

• One meeting/month (school board, council, commission).

• One service lane/year (mentoring, veterans support, first-responder auxiliaries).

10) Teaching block (plug-and-play for adult classes)

60–75 minute session plan

1. Hook (5 min): Ask: “Name two things only citizens can do.” (Answer together: vote in federal elections, serve on a federal jury, run for certain offices, re-enter U.S. unconditionally, etc.)

2. Mini-lecture (15 min): Birthright citizenship → franchise expansions → jury duty, with a one-slide timeline.

3. Case sprint (10 min): One paragraph each on Brown, Harper, Reynolds (equal vote weight), discuss “how did citizens force this change?”

4. Local audit (10 min): Pull up your county’s election page. Find: ID rule, early voting window, precinct map.

5. Jury simulation (15 min): 6-person mock jury on a short hypo. Focus on reasonable doubt & unanimity norms.

6. Commitment (5 min): Everyone writes one concrete action before next class (register three voters, attend one meeting, apply to a city board).

Take-home: a one-page checklist (see cheat sheet) + links to your county election office and jury FAQ.

11) Bottom line

The Constitution is not self-driving. It runs on citizen fuel: your vote, your voice, your service, your restraint, and your vigilance. You already have the tools. Use them — locally, repeatedly, and with other people who don’t think exactly like you. That’s how a republic is kept.