See other Resistance Articles
Title: Emergency Powers Must Be Repudiated
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/07 ... ncy-powers-must-be-repudiated/
Published: Jul 14, 2023
Author: James Anthony
Post Date: 2023-07-14 09:48:42 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 416
Comments: 4
Recently, on June 9, Representative Chip Roy (Liberty Score 100%), with 15 bipartisan cosponsors, and Senator Mike Lee (Liberty Score 94%), with 5 bipartisan cosponsors, introduced companion bills H.R.3988 and S.1912 “to provide for congressional approval of national emergency declarations.” A president would still be allowed to first unconstitutionally declare an emergency for 30 days. Then while the legislators would still be at least somewhat in the fog of war of the supposed emergency, the legislators would be faced with deciding whether to extend the emergency. They would find it easy to rationalize unconstitutionally continuing the emergency a full year (and later, another, and another). Freedom works best When anything changes, Progressive government people try to increase government power. Progressives hype many changes as emergencies that call for using force. Force usually is harmful. The only exceptions are in war, or when harmful criminal action is in progress¾when an aggressing force can be limited by a defending force. (Even here, such forces work best when they are decentralized and locally have relative freedom.) In all other situations, there’s no aggressing force, and the way to limit harm is to not apply force. Left free, people use information, intuition, and wisdom to choose the action that’s best for them moment-by-moment. People consider how their actions will affect others. People’s individual actions collectively produce the overall results that are best. Chip Roy, Mike Lee, and some cosponsors are among our best representatives. They almost certainly view these bills as what economist Murray Rothbard would have called “an initial demand.” But allowing emergency declarations and incentivizing extensions would be failing to always uphold Rothbard’s “ultimate goal of total liberty.” Freedom is required by charters If force is independently interpreted by a given government person to be constitutional and possibly helpful, his jurisdiction’s charter requires him to follow specific processes. Most everywhere, these processes clearly promise residents the constitutionally-guaranteed republican form of government, since they closely resemble the Constitution’s processes. Executives may convene legislatures and shall recommend measures they judge necessary and expedient. Legislators can pass and executives can sign bills. On any resulting laws, judges can hear cases and controversies. These actions by representatives who are accountable would have dramatically improved outcomes from covid. Freedom would have helped with covid Every action that would have helped with covid would have removed added force. Every government official was required to act constitutionally to protect his residents’ freedom. Every official could have helped remove his government’s own added force, other jurisdictions’ unconstitutional added force, and businesses’ and nonprofits’ unconstitutional restrictions on freedom. Charters already formally disallowed these restrictions. Clear, specific further laws would have been simple to add. Each law would have independently helped. Each would have also interrupted the cascade of harmful actions. Each could have been expedited by making it only apply for covid.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Emergency Powers Must Be Repudiated www.lewrockwell.com/2023/...owers-must-be-repudiated/ www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3988 www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1912 ============================ MOST AMERICANS HAVE LIVED THEIR ENTIRE LIVES UNDER EMERGENCY RULE, WHEN THE BANKSTERS DECLARED US 'ENEMIES OF THE STATE' IN 1933. (Arguably could go back to the war of northern (bankster) aggression.) Press Releases Chairman Nadler Statement for Hearing on "Examining Potential Reforms of Emergency Powers" Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Print this Page Share by Email Washington, May 17, 2022 Washington, D.C. - Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening statement, as prepared, during a Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties hearing on " Examining Potential Reforms of Emergency Powers ": “Since 1976, when Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, U.S. Presidents have declared the existence of 75 national emergencies, justifying their potential exercise of emergency powers. Of those 75 declarations, more than 40 remain in effect, with the oldest dating back to the 1970s. This means that for nearly five decades, this country has technically been in some form of a state of emergency. That is to say, some Americans have lived their entire lives under emergency rule. “This is deeply problematic, given the numerous powers a president can exercise upon issuing an emergency declaration. Experts have noted that at least 123 distinct statutory provisions become available to the president when invoking the National Emergencies Act. These statutory provisions delegate a broad range of authority to the executive branch, including the ability to test biological and chemical agents on humans, to suspend statutory wage-rate requirements for public contracts, or to take over communications networks. “Even more problematic is that the president need not show any relationship between the declared emergency and the statutory provision being invoked. Instead, the president is essentially given carte blanche freedom to act once an emergency is declared. “As we will hear from our witnesses today, the danger of unfettered executive power triggered by an emergency declaration has been a longstanding problem across administrations of both parties. “Indeed, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act to curtail certain abuses of the emergency authorities that had come before. The Act provides a general framework through which the president can declare national emergencies and—most importantly—through which Congress can review and terminate them. “At the time the law was enacted, it allowed Congress to terminate any emergency by a majority vote in both Houses. But in 1983, in INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not veto actions taken by the executive branch through majority votes in the House and Senate alone. Instead, the Court held that if Congress wanted to override the president’s actions, it had to pass a new law, which required either the president’s signature or a veto override. “Consequently, in 1985, Congress amended the National Emergencies Act to be consistent with that ruling. Unfortunately, in doing so, Congress lost a substantial amount of its constitutional power to constrain the president, making it effectively impossible for Congress to revoke the power that the president assumes upon declaring a national emergency. “The bottom line now is that if the president declares an emergency, and we in Congress do not like it, either we must convince the president to sign a joint resolution to terminate his or her own emergency declaration—an unlikely occurrence—or we need a veto-proof majority in Congress, which is very difficult to muster. While, in principle, it should not require a supermajority of Congress to stop the president from abusing power that Congress has delegated, the Court has forced our hand. “We may agree that the president should be allowed some types of discretion during true emergencies, but an emergency cannot continue in perpetuity. So, to shift the burden of inertia, we must set a time limit for emergencies—a reasonable proposal might require that they automatically expire after 20 days unless Congress ratifies the emergency declaration by law. “This type of sunset provision would restore the authority and the responsibility to change the law to where it belongs—in Congress. A similar provision was included in the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which passed the House last year, and I hope the Senate will join us in this important legislation. “Our nation’s founders left it up to all of us—including those of us in Congress—to act as guardians against assault on our constitutional order. That means we must reform the National Emergencies Act to ensure that future abuse will not occur. “Otherwise, as Senators Church and Mathias warned almost 50 years ago, ‘the unmistakable drift toward [a] one-[person] government will continue.’ “I recognize that we will not solve all these issues today, but I am eager to continue this important dialogue. I thank the witnesses for their participation, I look forward to their testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time." nadler.house.gov/news/doc...le.aspx?DocumentID=394839 ==================== A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA This page contains the complete text of the book "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. Due to file size limitations we have elected not to include scanned images of the exhibits that appear in the book... 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." Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say: "But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers." What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. The cause and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads: "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."... "...In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), "Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;" So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let's see how it reads after it's amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis added): "During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that be may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as be may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Page 6 of 29War & Emergency Powers Report What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the United States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the President of the United States through the authority given to him by the Trading with the Enemy Act. To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading with the Enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders. That act also defined the term "enemy" and excluded from that definition citizens of the United States. In Section 5 (b) of this act, we see that the President was given unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the United States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority, the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the United States, because we were certainly not enemies. Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary, and, in effect, all business transactions. "We the People," became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction. It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President...". So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of "national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States. When either of these two situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 17) "through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, boarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It's purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship..." www.usa-the-republic.com/emergency%20powers/War_And_Emergency_Powers.pdf " any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." - straight out of the treacherous 14th Amendment, by which ALL Americans were enslaved. Calling on all freedom-loving Americans to set a fire under Congress re so-called "Emergency Powers".
#2. To: All (#1)
(Edited)
“This is deeply problematic, given the numerous powers a president can exercise upon issuing an emergency declaration. Experts have noted that at least 123 distinct statutory provisions become available to the president when invoking the National Emergencies Act. These statutory provisions delegate a broad range of authority to the executive branch, including the ability to test biological and chemical agents on humans, to suspend statutory wage-rate requirements for public contracts, or to take over communications networks. Title 50 U.S. Code § 1520a – Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents Posted onFebruary 15, 2023AuthorEric Karlstrom Brief notes from Roger Tolces, P.I., interview with Ella Free (published Jan. 24, 2017): Tolces: “Title 50, chapter 32, section 1520 is a law that allows the military to use all Americans as bio-weapons experimentees with 15-30 day notice to anyone in authority. This law makes all Americans lab rats in military bio-weapons experiments. This law has been repealed… but new one, section 1520a, has been passed with the exception of any lawful purpose. Now they have put nonlethal weapons under the Attorney General…. Now it’s going to be justified as “riot control.” How do you get on the military’s “hit-list?” You are whistleblower or have had a conflict with someone in power. You’ve been in a conflict with someone in government somehow. The Conspiracycom.com 9/11 conference in Santa Clara, California, was heavily targeted in 2005. Title 50 U.S. Code § 1520a – Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents (a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)— (1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or (2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects. (b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes: (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity. (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. (c) Informed consent required. The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject. (d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees. (e) “Biological agent” defined In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing— (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or (3) deleterious alteration of the environment. (Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title X, § 1078, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1915; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, § 1067(4), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774.) gangstalkingmindcontrolcu...cal-or-biological-agents/ another example: https://www.jewworldorder.org/chemtrails-are-legal-under-patriot-act.htm Note "Title 50" is part of the Babylonian Commercial "CODE" that rules over us, and gives the resident his color-of-law "authority". There is so much unraveling to do here, and I have guests. some more pieces of the puzzle here: http://www.gemworld.com/UCC-applied.htm but taking on "emergency rule" is a good place to start, if there's enough time... edit. note blip on FEMA: "...IMPENDING BANKRUPTCY On my way here, I had a chance to visit with the Governor of Wyoming. He is very concerned that if he runs for office this November, that there won't be a State of Wyoming at the end of four years. He believes that the International Bankers might foreclose on the nation and officially admit that they own the whole world. They could round up everybody in the state capitol building, put them in an internment camp and hold them indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or they may not. They will do whatever they want. As I explained earlier, it has not been expedient to foreclose on the nation until they could get everything ready. This is where the Federal Emergency Management Agency comes in. It has been put in place without anyone really noticing it. FEMA FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been designed for when America is officially declared bankrupt, which would be a national emergency. In a national emergency, all Constitutional Rights and all law that previously existed, would be suspended. FEMA has created large concentration camps where they would put anyone who might cause trouble for the orderly plan and process of the new regime to take over the nation. Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now, and they are just waiting to declare a national emergency. Then even state governments could be dissolved. Anybody who might oppose the new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of laws could be written and a new government set up. The Governor knows all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't want to be in office when all this happens. I visited with him and I told him that there are certain action we should take right now. I think we should consider the fact that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is an accommodation party to the national debt. To under-stand this we must realize that there are two separate entities known as the United States. ..."
It is all a very tangled web of deceit and treachery. ;)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 1.
#4. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#1)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.