War and Emergency Powers Act

I heard that the States is talking about getting rid of Habeas Corpus and the unauthorized wire taps that they are now doing. It appears that the states have been in a state of war since the days of Lincoln when congress gave him extraordinary emergency-war powers with executive orders and, no president have signed off on those executive orders to this day, every president since that time has been ‘ruling’ via executive orders and not one has relinquished them back to congress and here is the kicker, congress tried in the early seventies and found out they have no power that it has to come from the president. Well Bush just called the constitution a God damn piece of paper, so when the executive orders are going to be withdrawn are anyones best guess but as Cicero said, In times of war, laws are silent.

So the public policy instituted in 1933 should really read ‘EXECUTIVE PUBLIC WAR POLICY’. As everthing is declared everything to be a war – poverty, drugs, cancer ..... In Orwellian doublespeak, the word war = emergency.

According to the "War and Emergency Powers Act" the United States has legally been under a state of national emergency since 1933 and this act has never been repealed.
There is no binding legal definition exists as to what constitutes a "national emergency" plus "Congress has made little or no distinction between a state of national emergency and a state of war."

War & Emergency Powers http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys5/wep1.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page contains the complete text of the book titled "War and Emergency Powers" A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Researched and written by: Gene Schroder, Alvin Jenkins, Jerry Russell, Ed Petrowsky, Russell Grieder, Darrell Schroder, Walter Marston,Lynn Bitner, Billy Schroder, Van Stafford, Fred Peters, Tinker Spain, and Paul Bailey. "We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established,"said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice) in 1920, "whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriouslywaged."

How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we'd have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn't we? JusticeHughes goes on to say:

"The conflict known as the World War had ended as far as military hostilities were concerned, but was not yet officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many of the emergency organizations were still in operation."

What is this man talking about when he speaks of "war statutes in effect and emergency organizations still in operation"?
In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11):

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule." Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on to
say: "For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

The introduction continues: "And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have from, at least, the Civil War, in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state
of national emergency." How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that something which could suspend our Constitution would not be taught in
school? Amazing, isn't it?

Where does this (Exhibit 12) come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the
Constitution of the United States of America, we find the following words:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it." Habeas Corpus - the Great Writ of Liberty. This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be
suspended, and that the government cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion
or a rebellion necessitates it.

In 1933 (Exhibit 9), Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. it means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the
German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the same."

It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 10. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.

Referring to the middle of this exhibit: "This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens"and this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933.

[idknow]

so it's either rule by military order or rule by kingship

but let us not forget tht the President is God's chosen.

that means something out here and to him also.
and if he wavers in his obedience he shall answer to his heavenly father.

Congressional Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Emergency Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, page 1, November 19, 1973, pursuant to Senate Res. 9, pub. By the U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Wash D.C.

We see on this same document Congressional Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words, "Enormous Scope of Powers... A TIME BOMB" … REMEMBER, THIS IS CONGRESS' OWN DOCUMENT, from the year 1973.

From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48):
"Under this procedure we retain Government by law, special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and the persons affected may be informed by the statute of their rights and their duties."
Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49): "My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT because the language of that act Is sobroad, it would 'JUSTIFY ALMOST ANYTHING."

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,"Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor of the litigant. But I don't think it bas reached the point, presently,that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits."
Senator Church then made the comment: "What you're saying, then, is that if Congress doesn't act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that NO ONE ELSE IS VERY LIKELY TO GET A STANDING IN COURT TO CONTEST."

Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):
"The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in the fact that it created a permanent agency designed to eradicate an emergency condition in the sphere of AGRICULTURE."

These [ABC] agencies, of which there are now thousands, and which now control every aspect of our lives, WERE OSTENSIBLY CREATED AS TEMPORARY AGENCIES MEANT TO LAST ONLY AS LONG AS THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY. THEY HAVE BECOME, IN FACT, PERMANENT AGENCIES, AS HAS THE STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY ITSELF. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: "We will never go back to the old order."

In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church: "If the PRESIDENT CAN CREATE CRIMES BY FIAT AND WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence."
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress(Exhibit 55):

"Furthermore, it would be largely futile task unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive - WE NOW FIND OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE WE CANNOT RECLAIM THE POWER WITHOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUIESCENCE. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation".

It appears that NO PRESIDENT HAS BEEN WILLING TO GIVE UP THIS EXTRAORDINARY POWER, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to, and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate.

In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement from Senator Church: "THESE POWERS, IF EXERCISED, WOULD CONFER UPON THE PRESIDEN TOTAL AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING HE PLEASED."
Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement (Exhibit 57):"Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than their original intention ... Machiavelli, in his "Discourses of Livy," acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may easily corrupt the people."

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply (Exhibit 58) written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the QUESTION OF THE TERMINATION OF THE STANDING NATIONAL EMERGENCY:

"As a consequence, a "national emergency" is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what bas become the regular and normal method of governmental actions. WHAT WERE INTENDED BY CONGRESS AS DELEGATIONS OF POWER TO BE USED ONLY IN THE MOST EXTREME SITUATIONS, AND FOR THE MOST LIMITED DURATION'S, HAVE BECOME EVERYDAY POWERS, AND A STATE OF "EMERGENCY" HAS BECOME A PERMANENT CONDITION."

HAS THE TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY EVER BEEN CONSIDERED? In Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won't it? But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is difficult to let go.

And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), the following words:

"(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken there under (1) Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a; 50 U. S. C. App.5b)"

The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all.

[rottweiler]

When the Trading with the Enemy act is brought up by the media it always has to do with some large corporation selling restricted stuff to a country like Iran, or other enemies outside the US, and not the millions of little corporations(THE ALL-CAPS SHEEPLE), the enemies within the US. If JOE BLOW sells crack to SUZY HOUSEWIFE does that violate that act also?

Remember the "trust man but obey God" thing? What if that "trust" conflicts with obeying God? The obvious answer has to be that we then bust the trust.

What would Jesus do? If we don't do what He would do we burn forever. If we do what He did we die, but only one time. We going to die anyway, might as well die with a smile on our faces and start kicking some devil butt in the meantime.

[David Merrill]

Here is the evidence a little more graphic.

The Act of 1917 is the Trading with the Enemy Act revised in 1933 to include anyone "under the jurisdiction" of the United States. That is very similar verbiage to the Fourteenth Amendment (1865). This is the mechanism by which ROOSEVELT made it illegal to "hoard" your own gold.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[masterduke]

I remember when comrade clinton was the white house occupant, there was a news story how he had signed that war emergancy powers thing on 8 differnt occassions(that was made public). Was he paranoid or what? Wonder how many dubya has scratched his X on?

More interestingly, is the fact that within the same Code section (War Powers) of the US Code, the Congress of the United States is required to submit a bill every six months for the purpose of rquiring the President to give answer as to why the National Emergency should not be cancelled.

Raising this issue with the office of Congressman Boyd from Florida, I was informed that the records indicate that the Congress has never fulfilled this requirement of Law.

I will search out the particular code again and post it in a follow-up.

Jerry.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/us
TITLE 50 <usc_sup_01_50.html> > CHAPTER 34 <usc_sup_01_50_10_34.html> > SUBCHAPTER II <usc_sup_01_50_10_34_20_II.html> > § 1622 Prev <usc_sec_50_00001621----000-.html> | Next
§ 1622. National emergencies
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Termination methods
Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if—
(1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or
(2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.
Any national emergency declared by the President shall be terminated on the date specified in any joint resolution referred to in clause (1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection, whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by reason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified date, except that such termination shall not affect—
(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.
(b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress
Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.
(c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate
(1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
(2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
(3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
(4) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such joint resolution within six calendar days after the day on which managers on the part of the Senate and the House have been appointed. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed in the House in which such report is filed first. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within forty-eight hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
(5) Paragraphs (1)–(4) of this subsection, subsection (b) of this section, and section 1651 <../uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001651----000-.html> (b) <../uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001651----000-.html> of this title are enacted by Congress—
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House in the case of resolutions described by this subsection; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
(d) Automatic termination of national emergency; continuation notice from President to Congress; publication in Federal Register
Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.
code/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001622----000-.html

[idknow]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

When the Trading with the Enemy act is brought up by the media it always has to do with some large corporation selling restricted stuff to a country like Iran, or other enemies outside the US, and not the millions of little corporations(THE ALL-CAPS SHEEPLE), the enemies within the US. If JOE BLOW sells crack to SUZY HOUSEWIFE does that violate that act also?

Remember the "trust man but obey God" thing? What if that "trust" conflicts with obeying God? The obvious answer has to be that we then bust the trust.

What would Jesus do? If we don't do what He would do we burn forever. If we do what He did we die, but only one time. We going to die anyway, might as well die with a smile on our faces and start kicking some devil butt in the meantime.

what is the connection tween `little corps' and the Enemy Act?

[rottweiler]

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county
courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to
marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it
because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides,
"everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question
- why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to
marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by
competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be
illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry
without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the
State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted
(Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor
should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply
and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to
license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers
a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It
is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State
jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license,
your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the
State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including
the fruit to of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your
children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case
law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being
administered to their children in the government schools which was very
invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were
shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children
were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take
the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over
their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them
jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their
birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically,
your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a
body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place
yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by
unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any
reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to
God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or
her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present
with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which
would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry
someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an
agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I
would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp
the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s
unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of
treason for me to do so.
4 . The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental
authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for
children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married.
Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex.
22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in
that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the
minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in
colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the
states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to
obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post
public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw
godly government displayed in that the State recognize the parents
authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today,
the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be
obtained to marry.
By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your
parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to
their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their
permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by
obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion
and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist.
From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license,
you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a
brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county
courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage
licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening
paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you
repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are
three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the
case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage
license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the
State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your
spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are
also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

-continued-