URGENT NOTICE TO THE MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT!
george landry
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES DO NO CREATE LAW -- MARBURY VS MADISON.
BEWARE! BUSH IS PLANNING TO OVERTHROW OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
-- TREASON.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted emergency
powers, and nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for
martial law.
REPOST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: NY Transfer News <NY-Trans...@blythe.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism alt.activism.d alt.activism.student
alt.activism.youth-rights alt.conspiracy
Subject: "Constitutional Dictatorship" Warns Nixon's WH Counsel
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:07:24 -0400
Sender: nyx...@pool-162-84-133-200.ny5030.east.verizon.net
Reply-To: NY_Trans...@blythe.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-162-84-133-200.ny5030.east.verizon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jun 2002 08:06:10 GMT
Path: news3.nntpserver.com newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com nntpserver.com
news-xfer.newsread.com netaxs.com newsread.com news.blythe.org
not-for-mail
"Constitutional Dictatorship" Warns Nixon's WH Counsel
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
[Here's an irony... John Dean, Richard Nixon's White House Counsel,
who predicted that Watergate would become a "cancer on the
presidency," is issuing another warning, this time that the US could
easily be headed for a "constitutional dictatorship."]
source - SolidarityI...@igc.org
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY:
Could Terrorism Result In A Constitutional Dictator?
by John W. Dean
Friday, Jun. 07, 2002
On September 14, 2001, President Bush declared that a "national
emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks ... and the
continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United
States." When the emergency will end, no one knows.
At present, the President has opted to exercise only a few of his
emergency powers. Under the National Emergencies Act, at this time,
he is only utilizing provisions relating to the military.
Will the President choose to use additional powers? It depends on the
future. Because we don't know what shape this undeclared war on
terrorism will take, we can't know what powers this president - or
any successor - might need to cope with the problems of terrorism.
An American President, should he need them, possesses awesome powers.
Those powers potentially include what political scientists have
described as the powers of a "constitutional dictatorship." No
President has ever had to go that far - although they have come
close.
Now, however, it is not difficult to conceive of scenarios where
terrorist groups, hell-bent on our destruction and refusing to abide
by any known rules of war, could employ weapons of mass destruction
or bio-terrorism in a manner that could threaten our existence as a
nation. What happens then?
Democracy In Crisis: Will It Transform Into Another Form of
Government?
Democracy works best in times of peace, when there is debate,
compromise, and deliberation in forming governing rules, regulations,
and policies. When confronted with a major crisis - particularly one
that is, like terrorism, of an unfamiliar nature - the nation will
turn to the President for initiative and resolute leadership. If our
very existence and way of life are threatened, Americans will want
their President to do whatever is necessary.
The history of democratic governments, from the ancient republics of
Greece and Rome to the modern states that have replaced earlier
totalitarian governments, show that governing by committees, or
legislative bodies, never works in times of crisis. Fortunately, our
Founders were aware of this when they designed our system.
Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 70 that the essential
nature of the chief executive is his "energy," which "is a leading
[element] in the definition of good government. It is essential to
the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is no
less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the
protection of property against those irregular and high-handed
combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of
justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and
assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy."
While our constitution contains no express provision for "emergency"
or "crisis" situations, such a provision is not necessary. The U.S.
Supreme Court made clear in Ex Parte Milligan, following the Civil
War, that "the government, within the Constitution, has all the
powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence."
Or as one commentator has added, "self-preservation is the first law
of any nation."
Presidents Create Their Own Emergency Powers
Past presidents - principally Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and
Franklin Roosevelt - by exercising their powers in time of emergency,
have expanded their authority as necessary to meet emergencies they
faced. They have, in essence, made the law in times of crisis, not
always in the manner envisioned.
Lincoln launched the Civil War unilaterally, without Congressional
action, following the secession of seven Southern states. Only later
did he obtain Congressional approval. His critics called him a
dictator. But he got the job done that had to be done.
Wilson asked for and received near dictatorial powers from Congress
when attacks by Germany against American ships and submarines plunged
the nation into World War I. He had to raise and equip a large army
to fight on foreign soil. To do so, he demanded and received
unprecedented new power and authority.
When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, the world-wide Great
Depression had reached its depths. The new President promised action,
and during his first 100 days, Congress gave him what he needed to
enable him to use federal powers to rout the Depression and rescue
every sector of the economy, as well as state and local government,
from economic ruin.
Later, following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which forced the
United States into World War II, FDR's exertion of his presidential
powers would far exceed anything Wilson or Lincoln had done. Through
the strength of his personality, Roosevelt lead the nation from that
day of "infamy" through battles in Europe, Africa, Asia and the
Pacific to total victory.
While FDR continued to ask Congress for what he needed, he gave them
no choice as to whether they would accede. For example, in demanding
that Congress repeal provisions in the Price Control Act (prohibiting
ceilings on certain food products), he told the Congress: "In the
event the Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall
accept the responsibility, and I will act." And he reminded the
Congress: "The President has the power
.... to take measures necessary to avert a disaster which would
interfere with winning of the war."
We've been blessed with strong presidents in times of national
crisis. They were men who demonstrated a capacity for leadership, and
men who acted undemocratically, but only to preserve our democracy.
We've been fortunate, for the distinction between a "constitutional
dictator" and a strong president is remarkably thin, if not
non-existent. As Writ columnist Michael Dorf has noted, there are few
checks on our Commander in Chief.
Constitutional Dictatorships: What Happens to Democracies in
Emergencies
"Those republics which in time of danger cannot resort to a
dictatorship will generally be ruined when grave occasions occur,"
wrote Machiavelli in his greatest work, The Discourses. This quote
opens the 1948 treatise Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis
Government in the Modern Democracies, by Clinton Rossiter. In
commenting upon the quote, Rossiter points out these are not the
thoughts of the out-of-work philosopher "who dashed off The Prince in
a vain attempt to wheedle a job out of Lorenzo de Medici." Rather,
there are the reflections of a mature and noted scholar who had
labored for years upon his work.
Rossiter looked at the phenomenon of constitutional dictatorships in
the aftermath of World War II, for he was concerned that "more rather
than fewer periods of crisis" lay ahead. In Constitutional
Dictatorship, he examines the experiences of crisis governments
ranging from the ancient constitutional state of Rome to four modern
states (Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States),
focusing on four major crises in the United States: the Civil War,
the two World Wars, and the Great Depression.
Professor Albert Sturm, a student of Rossiter's work, has also
written of constitutional dictatorships. In a 1949 essay "Emergencies
and the Presidency" in the Journal of Politics, for example, Sturm
found that these "temporary concentrations of power in an executive"
for meeting emergencies, which have been "employed by vigorous
democracies since ancient times," are necessary for "the preservation
of the established system in the face of temporary crisis."
Typically, such authority lasts only as long as the crisis, Sturm
notes, and it is sanctioned by the "existing constitutional system."
Constitutional Dictatorship: Could It Happen Here?
Of course, the very concept of a "dictatorship" is offensive and
inimical to our political thinking as citizens of a democracy. And
Rossiter acknowledges that no American government has ever been a
true constitutional dictatorship, as that concept is understood by
students of government. Rather, he uses the term, in the American
context, as "convenient hyperbole" - an exaggeration meant to
underscore how many, and how extensive, have been the powers American
presidents have necessarily arrogated to themselves in wartime.
Nevertheless, Rossiter, and other students of constitutional
dictatorships, do not rule out the idea that one could ever exist in
America. Indeed, they raised questions in the aftermath of World War
II that are still relevant today as we find ourselves in an
undeclared war, and the first stages of emergency government.
Recall that FDR took the nation from a "limited" national emergency
on September 8, 1939, to an "unlimited" emergency by May 27, 1941,
and then to total war by December 7, 1941. Anyone who does not
believe the war on terrorism will escalate, as well, is in denial.
Rossiter does not address the question of whether Americans could
tolerate the undemocratic ways of a constitutional dictatorship.
Instead, he is interested in the question of whether we could survive
the alternative. He asks, that is, if we could "afford not to resort
to undemocratic methods when such methods are essential to the
preservation of the state?" To raise the question suggests the
answer.
Terrorism Could Indeed Result In A Constitutional Dictatorship
"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises.
Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative
of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and
its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the
crisis has abated.
We are fighting a war against terrorism, with no end in sight. It is
a war, I believe, that will inevitably escalate. Indeed, it is a war
that could force the nation to live under martial law - for
indefinite periods.
These are not decisions that should be made by the President and
Congress each time the crisis escalates; rather, we should think
about them carefully in advance in order to make prudent decisions
later.
One need only look at the haste and thoughtlessness with which we
have adopted the potentially dangerous USA PATRIOT Act, most of which
Republicans and Democrats alike had earlier rejected, to understand
why legislating in the aftershock of terrorism should be avoided if
possible.
Our present emergency laws and regulations are a hodgepodge, a
patchwork quilt. They respond to precedents from past great crises,
and that is wise, but unfortunately these precedents do not
contemplate a protracted war on terrorism, or an enemy unlike any we
have ever confronted.
Congress has the power to determine whether it wants the American
equivalent of a constitutional dictator in the White House. The only
way to be certain that we don't make that decision during a crisis,
is to revise and codify our emergency laws now - before fear and
anger in the aftermath of a possible attack might cause us to make
bad decisions, and too easily trade liberty for security in numerous
areas.
As I write this column, President Bush has announced that he will
address the nation about his plans for restructuring the government
for fighting the war on terrorism. None of Professor Rossiter's
observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that
each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic
than before. With the President's announcement, it is not too soon to
consider whether, in fighting terrorism, we really want a
constitutional dictator to lead us. I certainly don't, nor do I know
anyone who does, but if a future attack comes, and is devastating,
the pressure to resort to constitutional dictatorship may be
irresistible.
[John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President
of the United States.]
Copyright (c) 1994-2001 FindLaw
_________________________________________________
Solidarity4Ever is distributed by SolidarityInfoServices, which
gathers the news you can use to understand and change the world. This
is a read-only list, but if you have an item you want posted, send it
to the list moderator at SolidarityI...@igc.org, who will
determine whether it is appropriate for redistribution.
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: n...@blythe.org
CORRECTION LISTED BELOW
NATIONAL EMERGENCY: CLINTON EXTENDS REPRESSIVE POWER
-> The White House explained its move Nov. 8 in a public notice from
the
-> president entitled "Continuation of Emergency Regarding Weapons of
-> Mass Destruction."
-> It says: "On Nov. 14, 1994, by Executive Order No. 12938, I
declared
-> a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary
-> threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the
-> United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological,
and
-> chemical weapons and the means of delivering such weapons.
-> "Because the proliferation ... continues to pose an unusual and
-> extraordinary threat ... the national emergency must continue in
-> effect beyond Nov. 14, 1995. Therefore, in accordance with section
-> 202 (d) of the National Emergencies Act, I am continuing the
national
-> emergency declared in Executive Order No. 12938."
-> IMMENSE POWERS FOR PRESIDENT
-> This declaration allows the president to wield immense powers to
-> limit free speech, free assembly and due process of law. It also
-> stipulates other powers, such as seizure of property, including
-> private industry, for government purposes.
-> President Franklin D. Roosevelt used similar measures when he
issued
-> Executive Order 9066 in 1942, shortly after the U.S. entered World
-> War II. This order was used to round up and intern over 100,000
-> Japanese Americans and other
More Globalist propaganda! You can't amend or suspend the Constitution
with a simple act of Congress, or Executive Order. To amend or
suspend the Constitution you need a 2/3 vote of Congress, or a
Constitutional Convention. In both cases it has to be ratified by 3/4
of the States.
Both Lincoln and Roosevelt usurped the powers of Congress and su-
spended Habeas Corpus. This can only be done by "CONGRESS" in cases
of insurrection and invasion.
There is also disinformation being spread about a War Powers Act of
1917. There is no such law. There was a Trading With the Enemies
Act -- which applied to bankers -- passed that year. Roosevelt had
an Emergency Banking Act passed in 1933 -- which also applied only to
banking. In addition he had the National Recovery Act passed that
year, which was declared unconstitutional in 1935.
In addition, there is no such thing as Martial Law in the
Constitution. It is simply a device used by a military commander to
restore order, when civil authority has broken-down. Also, the
President cannot federalize the National Guard: it is the
Congress that raises armies.
Beware! Those traitors in Washington are guilty of Sedition. They
are planning to overthrow our Constitutional Republic, and replace
it with a totalitarian police-state.
PS: Mike Adams -- Erwin Rommel School of Law -- had Dr. Gene Schroeder
admit there was no War Powers Act. This was done on a shortwave
talk-show. There is a reference to the War Powers Act in the
Congressional record, but this was a misnomer. It should have
said the War Powers Resolution (1973). This resolution specifically
states: that the President has to get statutory authority from
Congress before putting Americans in "harms-way." There is a
limited exception if America is attacked.
Also, presidential directives to the military -- unless authorized by
statute -- are unconstitutional: it is Congress that regulates our
armed
forces.
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United
States
of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers
Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the
intent
of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure
that the
collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply
to the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicate by
the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in
hostilities or
in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is
specifically
provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws
necessary and
proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also
all other
powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or
in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as
Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of
war, (2)
specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created
by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its
armed
forces.
Terms and Conditions - Posting Style Guide - Posting FAQ
©2001 Google
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
Ragnar
"george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2390a86a.02061...@posting.google.com...
>
> Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted emergency
> powers, and nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for
> martial law.
>
And the internet, cars, computers, or electricity aren't in the
Constitution! This means they are Unconstitutional! We must do something
about this treason!
зKе WхгKАо
wrote:
you damage control cons are being desparate.
the only way your going to stop the wave of
liberal/progressive/libertarian dissent is if you start up your
pogroms again....people are no longer buying your fabricated strawmen,
stonewalls, shredders and lies, pally-o.
>
>
Michael Ejercito
> AND ALL AMERICANS!!!
>
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES DO NO CREATE LAW -- MARBURY VS MADISON.
> -- TREASON.
>
Michael
Michael Ejercito
We can not stop dissent, but we can always tell the truth.
Michael
Mr_B...@reservoir_dogs.com
Really? It looks to me like there's a dozen or so dumb-shits like you,
amigocabal, torresD... gosh, wait, everybody in my MORON OF THE MONTH CLUB,
who are the only people with their panties in a big huge wad because they
think the government is gonna turn into a fascist state tomorrow. Know
what? All you people are either self-deluded or 11 year olds...
====================
Mr. Blonde's MORON OF THE MONTH CLUB:
torresD, amigocabal, fred, george landry, osama bin KENOB1
Dick Eastman, Hiccum Blurpaedius, Yentels Youth, chudh
Secret Squirrel, Paminifarm, John LeBlanc, Bob Hubert
Hit1Hard, Joe Camel, Truthout, Nancy Ann Luft ceniza
====================