An Open Letter To President Obama Regarding War On ISIS:

Mr. President,

The debate continues to rage regarding the president's authority to declare war and deploy troops.  As has come to be expected, you have said you will authorize war on your own authority as president.

The problem is, you do not HAVE authority as the President to declare war.

The following is excerpted from remarks made by Rep. Albert Gallatin during the debate that took place in the House of Representatives between April 20 through May 10, 1798 regarding a bill - passed by the Senate - that would have delegated authority to raise a "provisional" army to the president: 

"This bill goes to authorize the President to raise an army. He did not know what was meant by a provisional army. He did not find anything said in the Constitution of the United States relative to provisional armies, or of giving the President power to raise armies. He found mentioned there no other kind of defense than an army and militia. It says Congress shall raise and support an army, not provide for the raising of an army; but this bill is to enable the President of the United States to raise an army. The Constitution has declared that the raising of an army is placed in Congress, but this bill goes to declare that this power shall be vested by law in the President. That is the principle of the bill; and if Congress were once to admit the principle that they have a right to vest in the President powers placed in their hands by the Constitution that instrument would become a piece of blank paper. If it were to be admitted in one case, it would be admitted in another; and, if admitted in one department, it might be admitted in another. The power to raise taxes, he said, is contained in the same article of the Constitution which says Congress shall raise armies. And if they could delegate the power of raising an army to the President, why not do the same with respect to the power of raising taxes? He supposed the House would next hear of provisional taxes, to be raised if the President shall think fit. Mr. G., therefore, thought the principle inadmissible. If the circumstances of the union required an army, let it be raised; if not, he wished to give no power to raise it--especially, as the President, if he saw necessity, could call Congress together, if he should find that the circumstances of the country required it," emphasis added.

Mr. Gallatin's remarks are consistent with the law as laid down in the United States Constitution, Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power…
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
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…"

As Mr. Gallatin so correctly observed, If you see a necessity to authorize war, YOU CAN "…CALL CONGRESS TOGETHER…" AS REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND THEY WILL AUTHORIZE IT.

Michigan Police Departments Harassing Lawful Open Carriers….

At some point, police, who are supposed to know the law, have an obligation to begin explaining to people who call in that someone carrying a clearly holstered firearm and exhibiting no illegal behavior is within their rights under Michigan law. There are too many police departments that have instructed public offices to contact them whenever someone simply carrying a clearly holstered firearm shows up - regardless of whether they are actually engaging in illegal behavior (Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, and Ottawa County are just a few examples), and they are rolling units to respond to calls from people who are calling for no other reason than that the sight of a person carrying a clearly holstered frightens them, not because that individuals is doing something illegal.  I regularly see people openly carrying firearms in my line of work. As long as they aren't doing anything that could be considered illegal, I let them go on about their business.  Police are supposed to be ENFORCING THE LAW, not harassing law abiding citizens. 

Somehow we have come to accept the notion (and that is ALL it is) that people have a right to FEEL safe. No where does the Constitution express such a protected right. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to actually BE SAFE via the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Fourth Amendment right to be safe from illegal searches and seizures, which REQUIRES a duly authorized and issued WARRANT based on PROBABLE CAUSE that someone is engaging in an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY; the Michigan state Constitution contains a similar protection. A situation occurring recently in Kalamazoo, MI, in which a public library called police to report a carrier exercising his right to openly carry a clearly holstered firearm (Police called on lawfully carrying citizen), doesn't even meet the incredibly low standard of a Terry Stop (reasonable suspicion of illegal activity).

Those who say they have a right to feel safe need to read the study commissioned by none other than Obama himself. It clearly concludes that 1) citizens use their firearms with incredible regularity to deter crime and 2) those who do so are actually SAFER from crime than those who do not.

That's why Obama is crying for more money to carry out more "studies." The first study, using objective data, failed to confirm his agenda. He needs to keep digging until he finds someone who will.

In the meantime, it is time for law enforcement to begin enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold - and explain those rights to otherwise ignorant citizens.