Securing a Free State Through Constitutional Law Enforcement

Despite the pervasive existence of political corruption, the American constitutional system chartered a framework of checks and balances, deliberately distributed power, and incorporated specific mechanisms to secure liberty against official misconduct. Many Americans today perceive the growing disconnect between constitutional principles and the administration of justice in practice. The expensive and oppressive size, scope, and authority of federal executive bureaucracies gives rise to important questions on the proper recourse against officials who exceed their delegated powers. However, there are overlooked constitutional mechanisms, specifically militias and juries, designed to preserve liberty and enforce legal accountability at the local level without dependence on easily corruptible politicians or bureaucrats.

Constitutional Resilience

The United States Constitution is framed in such a way that specific safeguards empower the citizenry to address governmental tyranny without necessarily resorting to a second American revolution or civil war. Such mechanisms are not merely supplementary but essential components of the federal system of government. Understanding these original enforcement mechanisms should be of interest to constitutionalists, libertarians, conservatives, and Second Amendment advocates who are dismayed with the current political trajectory yet lack a clear corrective action plan. They may be correct in assessing that voting is not a decisive solution, or that the deep state swamp is formidable. However, as Benjamin Franklin allegedly told Elizabeth Willing in 1787, the republican form of government can only function so long as We The People can “keep it” in proper functioning order. In other words, self-government requires engagement rather than relying upon representatives and other public officials. In fact, distrust of public officials is an essential component of constitutional order. Further prevention of “mischief” on the part of those holding office requires “binding” them down with the “chains” of the contractual government charter, as Thomas Jefferson rightly declared in 1798.

What then, specifically, should We The People do in order to arrest official transgressions and violative behavior? The first action is to reframe the narratives and terms, both within individual minds as well as in public discourse, about the legal construct of constitutional government.

Constitutional Foundations of Law Enforcement

The United States Constitution explicitly identifies itself as “the supreme Law of the Land” in Article VI. This supremacy clause establishes the Constitution as the paramount authority to which all officials, at every level of government, must adhere. Any action by government officials that contravenes constitutional boundaries is, by definition, unlawful and a crime in need of a legal remedy.

This principle is fundamental: Constitutional government is, at essence, a binding contract between a political community, composed of people with equal rights under a common law, and the subset of the population holding positions within governmental offices tasked with administering security and justice functions. Taken further, the United States is a contract between the American people, the individual member states, and a general government created to fulfill an enumerated amount of specified tasks.

Together, this contract of people, states, and a general government, each with articulated rights, functions, and responsibilities, composes a federal system with multiple branches and levels in a subsidiary institutional framework. This federal subsidiarity principle ensures that governing authority remains primarily at the most local level, with decreasing authorities granted to entities further removed from the people themselves. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this concept by explicitly stating that powers not delegated to the federal government “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When officials exceed their constitutionally delegated powers, they operate outside of legitimate governmental authority and incur personal civil or criminal liability for their actions. The problem of how to enforce the law in the face of crimes committed by public officials really boils down to who is supposed to do the enforcing.

We the People as the Ultimate Authority

The Constitution’s opening phrase, “We the People”, is not merely rhetorical flourish but a declaration of where sovereignty ultimately resides. In the American system of political philosophy, the people themselves are the government and not merely those holding public office. Public officials serve as agents, bound by the limitations of their delegated authorities. When any official, officer, agent, or subcontractor exceeds these limitations, they cease acting in a governmental capacity and, instead, become individually responsible for any harms they have committed.

This principle finds statutory expression in 18 U.S.C. § 242, which criminalizes the deprivation of constitutional rights by anyone acting “under color of any law.” This federal statute acknowledges that rights violations by officials require accountability mechanisms independent of the very bureaucracies employing the offenders. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and all taxing authority must also be pursuant to a constitutionally delegated authority. Therefore, any public official involved with spending from the public treasury on anything other than an enumerated function is depriving every net taxpayer of their right to be secure in their life and property. This has wide-reaching implications and contemplating the scale of needed corrective action can be overwhelming when considering just how much the current political configuration operates completely untethered to a legitimately enumerated authority. Nevertheless, the remedy remains the same and just as demolishing a condemned building need not be done brick by brick, so too can dismantling an illegitimate governmental edifice be done with precise charges in strategic locations.

Constitutional Law Enforcement Mechanisms

The Militia of the Several States

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution designates the militia of the several states as the “necessary” institution for “executing the Laws of the Union.” This constitutional designation is frequently overlooked in contemporary discourse about law enforcement. The clause states Congress has power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Several critical observations arise from this constitutional provision:

1. The militia is explicitly identified as the institution for executing federal laws, not federal executive branch bureaucracies or agencies.

2. The Constitution recognizes only “the Militia of the several States” (Article II, Section 2), not a national militia. The reference to “several States” emphasizes the local, decentralized nature of this institution.

3. The National Guard, contrary to common misconception, is not the constitutional militia but rather functions as an adjunct of the national army with a distinctly different constitutional status.

4. All other law enforcement entities, to include police, sheriffs, constables, or special agents, must be constitutionally understood as subordinate to or derived from the militia’s fundamental law enforcement authority designated by the supreme Law of the Land.

This constitutional designation of the militia as the primary law enforcement mechanism within the federal system reflects the framers’ commitment to localized control over law enforcement rather than centralized authority. The militia, comprising virtually every able-bodied citizen, represents the ultimate check against official abuse and guarantee of local self-government.

Grand Juries and Public Trials

The Constitution similarly establishes juries as essential to the administration of justice. The Fifth Amendment requires that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,” while the Sixth Amendment guarantees trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

Article III, Section 2 further reinforces that “The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.”

These provisions establish several important principles:

1. Grand juries possess independent investigative and indictment powers without requiring approval from prosecutors or other officials.

2. Each county or local polity, as constituent members of the federation, has constitutional authority to impanel grand juries to investigate violations of federal law, including misconduct by public officials.

3. Juries represent a direct mechanism for citizens to enforce legal accountability independent of potentially compromised bureaucratic structures. There is no need to wait on a federal Department of Justice to take action.

The grand jury system was specifically designed to serve as a check against errant prosecutorial discretion and official misconduct. When properly understood and implemented, it provides communities with powerful tools to address governmental overreach without relying on the very institutions potentially implicated in wrongdoing.

Practical Implementation of Constitutional Enforcement

Local Grand Juries and 18 U.S.C. § 242

The practical application of these constitutional principles provides a roadmap for addressing official misconduct. Local grand juries have the authority to investigate and indict officials who violate constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which states:

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...”

This statute provides clear legal grounds for prosecuting officials who exceed their constitutional authority, and, importantly, does not require initiation by federal prosecutors. Local grand juries can independently investigate such violations and issue indictments, thereby activating the constitutional enforcement process without dependence on federal agencies like the Department of Justice—an entity with no explicit constitutional standing.

Local communities have the means to investigate, arrest, and prosecute any public officer that exceeds the limits of their delegated authorities, regardless of what level of government they are involved with throughout the federation. This means any politician or bureaucrat participating in the redistribution of other people’s property for anything other than a constitutionally enumerated purpose can, and should, face legal penalties where they reside.

Interstate Cooperation in Law Enforcement

The Constitution also anticipates interstate, or inter-county, cooperation in law enforcement operations. When a grand jury in one jurisdiction issues an indictment or a court issues an arrest warrant, constitutional principles support mechanisms for executing these instruments across jurisdictional lines:

1. Arrest warrants and other judicial processes can be issued to the local militia for service and execution.

2. Details of such warrants can specify charges, terms and bounties for arrest, and transportation costs the originating jurisdiction will bear to have the offender returned to face justice.

3. Cooperating jurisdictions can arrange for their respective militias to transport arrested individuals back to the warrant-issuing jurisdiction for trial through mutual aid agreements and compensation mechanisms.

4. Modern communications technologies facilitate notification of existing warrants to every polity in the federation, creating an effective decentralized enforcement network as a modern version of colonial era Committees of Correspondence.

This approach reflects the federalist structure of the Constitution, respecting both state sovereignty and the need for coordinated law enforcement without centralizing power in federal agencies.

The Constitutional Alternative to Bureaucratic Enforcement

The Department of Justice, FBI, ATF, and other federal law enforcement agencies are not mentioned in the Constitution. Their existence stems from dubious statutory creations, not a constitutional mandate. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution states that Congress is supposed to “call forth” the militia of the several States in order to “execute the laws of the union,” not set up permanent tax funded bureaucracies that answer exclusively to the general government at the expense of local prerogatives. Through understanding and implementing the constitutional mechanisms of militias and juries, citizens can exercise their rightful authority in law enforcement without dependence on these bureaucracies.

The Constitution provides a complete framework for law enforcement that includes:

1. Investigation through locally impaneled grand juries

2. Indictment through these same grand juries

3. Investigation and criminal apprehension through a network of local militia

4. Trial by jury in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred or was discovered

5. Execution of legal proceedings through organic constitutional mechanisms

This system provides full due process without requiring centralized federal agencies, ensuring that “We the People” maintain ultimate control over law enforcement rather than delegating it to potentially unaccountable bureaucrats. It is also the means of handling highly corruptible politicians.

Securing a Free State Against Rogue Officials

The question of how constitutional mechanisms can secure a free state against rogue officials finds its answer in these original constitutional provisions. The Constitution establishes a comprehensive system for addressing official misconduct:

1. Independent Investigations: Grand juries can have the local militia collect witnesses and evidence to investigate allegations of misconduct without approval from permanent bureaucrats.

2. Citizen Indictment: Grand juries can indict officials who violate constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242 without depending on tax-funded prosecutors who may have conflicting interests.

3. Organic Enforcement: The militia of the several states, the body of citizens themselves, possesses constitutional authority to execute laws and judicial processes against offending officials.

4. Impartial Judgment: Trial by jury ensures the citizens who bear the burdens of supporting government, and not officials who subsist from it, determine guilt or innocence in matters of constitutional malfeasance.

5. Decentralized Authority: The people themselves operate the system without dependence on centralized bureaucracies, thereby preventing institutional obstructions of justice by the tapestry of rogue officials and illegitimate agencies.

When politicians and bureaucrats exceed their delegated authorities, they cease acting as government officials and become violators who are individually liable for their actions. The constitutional mechanisms of militias and juries provide citizens with the tools to enforce this accountability without relying on potentially compromised individuals and institutions.

Conclusion

The U.S. Constitution provides a robust framework for securing liberty through decentralized law enforcement mechanisms controlled by citizens rather than ineffectual and biased officials. The militia of the several states and the jury system represent a constitutional means for executing laws and ensuring justice. These institutions place law enforcement authority directly in the hands of “We the People” rather than corruptible politicians and lethargic bureaucrats.

Modern Americans have largely forgotten these original constitutional mechanisms, instead accepting an increasingly centralized system of law enforcement dominated by executive branch agencies with questionable constitutional standing. Reclaiming knowledge of these constitutional provisions offers a pathway to restoring proper checks on governmental power. In fact, it places We The People as the final check valve in the circuit of sovereignty. We The People are the source of law enforcement power and, through grand juries and militia, the ultimate executor of it.

For constitutionalists, libertarians, conservatives, and Second Amendment advocates concerned with governmental overreach, understanding and revitalizing these constitutional enforcement mechanisms represents a peaceful, lawful strategy for securing the blessings of liberty. By returning to these fundamental principles, citizens can fulfill their rightful role as the ultimate guarantors of constitutional governance and enforcers of the supreme law of the land.