University of Virginia Library

No Lawful Authority

Our defense was built on the
contention that we had committed
no crime. In fact, we still believe we
did not unlawfully enter, or refuse
to leave when the lawful authority
requested. Throughout the trial we
maintained that the draft was
violating the constitution, leaving
the Director of the D.C. boards
without lawful authority. We
maintained that the war in Vietnam
was unconstitutional (not to
mention criminal), leaving the
representatives of the Federal
Government without lawful
authority to remove us; and finally,
because the people of Washington,
D.C., are a colony and not
represented in Congress, the
subsequent violation of the
constitution left the Metro-Police
without any authority.

As we raised each of these issues
the prosecutor would rise and say
"Your Honor, I must strenuously
object, the testimony of the
defendants is irrelevant."

"I'll let them testify to their
motivations. Objection overruled."

As I've said before, the judge is a
good man. While he seemed to
recognize the legitimacy of our
motivations he was unwilling to
rule on the questions we raised. In
fact, he couldn't.

The nature of a democracy is
such that when the government in
power usurps authority the final
test of that usurpation is in the
decision of the jury. Freedom of
the press in 1735 was upheld by a
jury in a technical violation of the
law. During the pre-civil war period,
juries refused to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Laws. Time after
time, juries decided a question
greater than whether or not a
technical violation of the law had
occurred, they decided whether or
not a law was oppressive by
deciding when it should be
enforced.

Judge McIntyre refused to
instruct the jury of their function
as final enforcer of the law. He, like
all the other representatives of the
U.S. government (from President
Nixon to the assorted presidents of
America's colleges) could not allow
a jury to decide questions involving
and exposing usurpation of
constitutionally granted powers.
Further they cannot leave questions
of governmental authority open to
juries' consciences because they
fear the legitimate right of the
citizens to refuse to obey laws
where these laws are instituted to
maintain the government in power
- not the Constitution.

A democracy functions on
minority acquiescence to the
majority when that majority
operates within the limits
prescribed by the Constitution.
When, however, the Constitution is
blatantly flaunted (i.e. Dickie
Nixon statement, I don't need
congressional approval, I'm the
Commander-in-Chief), the
appropriate methods for returning
the government to one of laws are
left moot, from peaceful disruption
of the illegitimate agencies ("if thy
hand offends thee, cut it off") to
revolution.

So we were found guilty.
Indeed, we were in that office and
had every intention of staying so
long as the war was prosecuted and
the draft maintained. But we
committed no crime. The trial was
a sham, not because the judicial
system is, in and of itself, invalid
but because the government
enforcing it is invalid.