Select Page

Dumping TPP Placed Kink in Globalist NWO Plans

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Many still do not understand the significance of Trump’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) pullout. It was the most serious blow to the globalists in 100 years. In the political literature of the last 100 years internationalism, world government, new world order (NWO), world order and globalism are synonymous. They suggest a progressive transfer of national sovereignty to a higher level of government such as the United Nations. The idea of the 1950’s and 1960’s was to increasingly enlarge the UN until it was the recognized world government with total power. When possible this process continues.

Since countries have been slow to forfeit their national sovereignty to the UN, proponents next encouraged regional governments—uniting countries into geographical units, as for example the European Union, then later, when peoples and nations get used to this power transfer, unite them then into a single political unit. Since countries will never initially unite into a single political unit, the plan was to begin with economical unity then progress to the political unity desired, precisely as was successful in the E U. The unification of Europe into a regional government processed through the following five stages: European Coal and Steel Community, Common Market, European Economic Community, European Community, and finally European Union when political unity was possible.

The USSR, after the fall of communism in 1989, transformed itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA)—a regional government of nations still under the control of Russia. The world has since been divided into other regional governments each following the European Union model and free trade agreements (economic persuasion) have been the favorite tool. Currently there are 23 such regional agreements each at a different stage in the unifications of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the somewhat deceptive “free trade” terminology. In time the plan is to reduce 206 countries to less than 20 regional governments turning these countries into mere states of regional countries—a much more manageable world, globalists believe.

Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology when they describe themselves as for example, the African Economic Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), both uniting large sections of Africa. The Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU) uniting northern Islamic Africa and the Middle East is another. South America is to be united by the Southern Cone Common Market, frequently referred to as Mercosur. It has progressed to the point that it now has a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a final step toward political unification. But most still need these words. Central Europe is to be united by the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) exists to unite countries from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.

In the United States The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was to gradually unite Canada, the United States and Mexico into one regional government as had the European Union united Europe. A real border was never to be implemented because in time we were to be the North American Union complete with open borders of the people within and with an amero dollar to match the euro dollar. To globalists national sovereignty is the enemy. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, that depend on and protect national sovereignty, cannot be allowed to obstruct the move to a world government.

The main reason that the U.S. was not to have an effective southern border prior to the political unification of the three countries was because Mexico was so far behind the other two countries in economic development and it needed time to elevate itself. Mexicans flooding the U.S. for better paying jobs and many sending a portion of their money back to families in Mexico or opting to retire in their homeland with pensions acquired in the U. S., helped in Mexico’s economic elevation.

Some trade agreements also intentionally interlaced with other trade agreements. The three countries in NAFTA also are signatories of the 5,600 paged Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), just ended by President Trump. Had it been implemented it would have governed 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports and 26 percent of the world’s trade. It would have been the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region regardless of what the U.S. Constitution might say.

Its sister trade deal the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), called for by President Barack Obama in his February 12, 2013 State of the Union Address, would have economically merged the European Union and the United States much more closely with respect to market access, specific regulation and broader rules. Secret negotiations on the TTIP are expected to continue through 2020 and remain classified so the extent of this merger is unknown.

Trumps opposition to illegal immigration and his pulling out of the TPP negotiations are the most serious blows to the globalists in 100 years and will never be tolerated by them. They will continue to spew hate for him. His announced objective to renegotiate NAFTA as well and his probable pull out of TTIP too, may make him the most influential president rescuing us from world government.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Trump Saves U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For readers who do not understand the international trade deals of the last 25 years, notably NAFTA, GATT and TPP, you will never fully grasp what President Donald J. Trump has just done for the Constitution and against the proponents of globalism. In his first day in office, pulling the United States out of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, he has done more to return us to constitutional integrity and to international free market economics than the last four presidents combined. Space permits our confining ourselves to the threat averted to the Constitution.

International trade deals have historically been a mix of oxymoron’s: Republicans for and Democrats against, with the actual trade deals finalized and implemented by Democrat presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Unions, considered left, and Tea Party folks, considered right, have been consistent opponents, as have constitutionalists. Thus, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul are on the same side, the former yelling in opposition to the TPP, “No more secret trade deals!” And, “No more special deals for multinational corporations!!”—Both accusing Obama of selling us out.

In 2013, the Washington Post was the largest newspaper to print some of the “secret” parts of the TPP observing that by then, after nearly a decade of negotiation and 19 secret meetings, had become a regional government document of a hefty 5,600 pages. “Which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade.” It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region—without the input of a single member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. In fact, until 2015 members of Congress had not been allowed to even see the treaty whereas privileged corporations had no problem with access.

The paper continued, “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food,” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excluded you, the media, Congress, and me.

The Post acknowledged that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language in the Constitution that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not affect “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. The admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II.   Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency would have virtually voided the Constitution in this area.

The Post identified “60 senators (who) have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, have been especially vocal about the Obama “Administration’s refusal to make draft text available.” Wikileaks published the chapter on intellectual property raising “many questions about copyright protections.” Obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to restrict everything in the industry. And this was but one of 29 chapters.

The implementation procedure of the globalists was to gain consensus among the countries signing it, all had by February 4, 2016, then present it Fast Track and without debate to both branches of Congress for a simple up or down vote.   Again, this procedure flies in the face of the Constitution. Treaty making, an agreement between two or more countries, is a shared power between the president and the senate. The president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Barack Obama did not seek Senate advice; indeed he has not even allowed the Senate to read his treaty prior to November 5, 2015, even then he accepted no changes in it. Then he presented it to both houses for a simple majority vote instead of only to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally mandated.

Law by a single man excluding Congress is unconstitutional. International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership would have siphoned decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and would have affected every American. A signature by any member of Congress or by a president would have violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Thank God Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not present it to the Senate when finished and President Trump took it off the table entirely.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Use the Constitution to Recover Confiscated State Land

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Utah stands out in its desire to retain public land not given it when it became a state and in using original intent in interpreting the Constitution, but her leaders do not understand the Constitution well enough to see that the Constitution already corrects the problem if used as designed. This ignorance dangerously undermines the Constitution.

Fourteen of Utah’s highest elected leaders, with sabers rattling threatening retaliation, bemoaned the President’s executive order removing from Utah’s public use an area the size of New Hampshire. Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch plan to reintroduce legislation-exempting Utah from the Antiquities Act. Both hope the Trump Administration will help them reverse the Obama executive order. State Attorney General Sean Reyes wants to sue the federal government but this action failed with respect to the Grand Staircase National Monument. Other options suggested include defunding the monument, or through Congress, reducing its monumental size from 1.35 million acres to something more reasonable. Governor Gary Herbert gave the weakest response, offering no remedy.

All of this anger will result in votes in their next elections but none of it will result in an ounce of change. If not rescinded by Trump, the Monument will still be in place long after these politicians have been replaced. These solutions only complicate the problem enlarging the power of the federal government for the next confiscation challenge whether by Trump or yet a future Clinton or Obama.

Why not use the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumerated clause of Section I Clause 8, which lists the areas in which the federal government can legislate, execute, and adjudicate? All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the Amendment process outlined in Article V, are left to the States.

This clause divides all federal power into the four following areas: Congress has power to tax, pay debt, provide for the general welfare and common defense. So as to restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two grants of power of the four each had an additional eight clauses giving clarity to what was meant by general welfare and national defense. Clause 17 restricts the federal government to only 10 square miles for a capital and allows other property for military purposes. Other than this there exists no federal land outside territory awaiting statehood as per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

Even with this clarification states, fearing that the federal government might still like to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions harnessing it more fully to the enumerated powers, hence the Bill of Rights. These end with the handcuffs of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The proper response to the most recent monument declarations, Bears Ears and Gold Butte (and in any other state where the state government has to protect its authority), as is the cases for Utah and Nevada, is to refuse to recognize it and boldly so state. It is quick and final. The solution is definitely not to sue the federal government as this only places the decision in another branch of the same federal government, which almost always rules to increase federal power. Once rendered there, it only makes it more difficult to not comply. It is not to hope that Trump will rescind it because it asks another federal entity to do what the executive branch never had power to do in the first place. It is not to ask Congress to declare that the monuments be smaller in size as that implies that they had the power to create them in the first place. None of these is likely to work. What works is to honor the Constitution and declare boldly that the federal government has no constitutional authority to own, manage or control property outside national defense within its state boundaries.

Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were each especially vocal with respect to states having the authority to “Just Say No!” to federal law not enumerated. Such was used in 1798 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, in 1832 in the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, and more successfully with the northern states, especially Wisconsin, in 1854 over the highly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act. Today 30 states currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form despite objecting federal law, and most states continue to refuse to implement the federal Real ID Act. Without new amendments to the Constitution these, and many more issues, remain state issues.

Remember the states created the federal government in the first place and they created a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty, neither is master or slave to the other. Each viewed state nullification as an important check on unacceptable federal assumption of state powers. No branch of the federal government, not even the Supreme Court, has the constitutional authority to destroy this check. The Constitution will recover confiscated state property if governors have the fortitude to use it. Tell Governors Herbert and Brian Sandoval to use it.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Constitutional Concerns with Obama’s Midnight National Monuments

By Harold Pease Ph. D

Just two weeks ago, December 28, Barack Obama created the Bears Ears National Monument in Southeastern Utah and the Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada just northeast of the outskirts of Las Vegas. He used the 1906 Antiquities Act to set aside 1.35M acres surrounding San Juan County’s Cedar Mesa in Utah and 300,000 acres in southern Nevada. Never mind that the Bears Ears designation was opposed by every elected official in Utah.

In eight years as president Obama has “set aside” (code for human removal) more than 267 million acres of land and water—more than any other president. This acquisition alone is larger than the state of New Hampshire.

What does “set aside” actually mean when implemented? It is the strictest classification of land use. “These areas will be off-limits to mining and mineral exploration, oil and gas drilling, grazing, timber harvest, and even many of the current recreational uses of camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle usage that the public previously enjoyed” (William F. Jasper, The Last Word, The New American, p. 44).   All this new regulation and governance with but a stroke of the pen by one man with no constitutional authority to make law— this a prerogative of Congress alone.

The Constitution limits federal ownership of land to 10 miles square for a capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. As all land acquisition powers are in Article I of the Constitution, with the legislative branch, the president was left out of the process. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the national monuments designated by President Barack Obama. None were purchased, none received the consent of the State Legislature, and none are used exclusively for military purposes. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land outside territory awaiting statehood as per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

One might argue that most, if not all, of the monuments were already on federal land having been acquired when the federal government refused to give to new states all the land that went with statehood when they transitioned from territorial status. That is true. The federal government through this process came to own about a third of the United States. Just because late 19th Century leaders fraudulently acquired the property in the first place, it does not follow that present leaders should expand the fraudulency. Constitutionally all land within state boundaries, unless acquired through the three stipulations noted in the Constitution, belong to the states—no exceptions.

Presidents announcing new monuments normally cite the Antiquities Act of 1906 as the authority to do so and President Theodore Roosevelt as the first to use it in his creation of the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming the same year. Although this Act violated the above-cited constitutional land limitations, it, at least was an act of Congress representing the will of Congress in 1906 to which the then president responded. As unconstitutional as this was, Congress, reflecting the voice of many, still made the law and was in charge.

This was not authority for succeeding presidents the next hundred and ten years to hang every federal land confiscation on an antiquated law not authorized in the Constitution without a new constitutional amendment. Thus, in 1906, only one part of the Constitution was violated, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, with its three limitations on federal land ownership, and that by the 1906 Congress. Presidents using this authority, thereafter by executive order, are not now doing it as the will of Congress or by their direction. They are essentially making law by themselves—a serious violation of the separation of powers doctrine (Article I, Sec. I).

The executive branch has NO authority to make law—any law!!!! Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Originally they were but interdepartmental directives.

Unfortunately all presidents since Roosevelt used the 1906 law that trumps the Constitution except Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. Sadly they were the only ones who followed the clarity of the Constitution with respect to federal ownership of property. That the federal government has created national monuments unconstitutionally on what are state lands, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional.   If this process continues, which has been accelerated under Obama, it is likely that the federal government may come to own far more than the third of the landmass that it now owns—perhaps all?

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

States Nullifying NDAA “Indefinite Detention” Growing

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) funding national defense and updated every December despite a few modifications continues to “require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U. S. soil, indefinitely” and without trial, on the say so of the military through the President alone. Moreover, even U.S. citizens could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba against their will and deprived of their constitutional rights. The law gave no protection from a revolving definition of terrorism to anti-government, perhaps even Tea Partiers.

The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and jury is very serious. It violates Article III. “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” It also emasculates Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights. The military performing police duty, heretofore rendered by civil authorities, is unconscionable in a free society.

Amendment 4 deals with searches and seizures and reads in part “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation…” Warrants give civil authority the power to arrest only when the reason for the search (probable cause) has been reviewed and authorized, normally by an elected judge, who has given an oath to uphold the Constitution. He stands between the plaintiff and the defendant as the protector of constitutional law. There is no role for the military even with a President’s authorization. Freedom dies when this amendment dies.

Amendment 5 has several parts that are affected by this law but space limits my coverage to just a couple. Infamous or serious crimes mandate a grand jury, twelve or more citizens to evaluate the evidence before proceeding, which will not exist in a military arrest and extradition to Guantanamo Bay process. Moreover, one cannot “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Due process is the civilian judicial system.

Amendment 6 deals with criminal court procedures where “the accused shall enjoy the right to … a public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.” This law destroys the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution for those thought to be enemies of the state by a president. There will be no “impartial jury,” no “obtaining witnesses in his favor,” no “counsel in his defense,” and Cuba is hardly within “the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

Finally the NDAA obliterates Amendment 8 for those the President and his military define as terrorists. The protection against cruel and unusual punishment for them ends and torture becomes justified. The military will not care about excessive fines or bail, also parts of the eighth amendment. The possibility of “indefinite detention” or transfer to an unnamed foreign entity for unspecified purposes under military, rather than civilian jurisdiction, is “cruel and unusual punishment.” As is having a missile fired upon you by a predator drone based upon secret evidence presumed to be true by one man—the president

Sadly both Democrats and Republicans, despite their oath to preserve the Constitution, are responsible for this bill. With bipartisan support it is unlikely to be reversed. But there is another just as powerful way found in the Tenth Amendment to return to the Constitution. The use of The Liberty Preservation Act, “which bans participation with or assistance in any way with any federal act which purports to authorize the indefinite detention of a person within the United States.”

Virginia, home of Declaration of Independence author, Thomas Jefferson, and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, was appropriately the first state in the Union to nullify the NDAA in a 96-4 and 39-1 vote in its House and Senate respectively. Done March 1, 2013, just two months after Obama signed it into law. Alaska joined Virginia in July followed by California in October of the same year, Governor Jerry Brown stating. “It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California.”

Michigan followed December 27, 2013. Appropriately it was the first state in the Union to use the 10th Amendment to defy the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act of 1855, which refused to return runaway slaves to the South and their masters. Michigan will not participate in “holding a US citizen without Habeas Corpus.”

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, a non-partisan organization that keeps track of state nullification efforts, “16 states have introduced or passed non-compliance resolutions or bills resisting the NDAA.” They also provide a model for resistance called the Liberty Preservation Act for other states wishing to implement this part of the Constitution. Texas proposes the toughest penalties on federal agents attempting to implement NDAA law in their state, a jail term “not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the confinement and the fine.”

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

5th Anniversary of NDAA “Indefinite Detention” Law

Harold Pease, Ph. D

On December 31, 2011, New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama signed into law the most constitutionally damaging law in American history, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This New Year’s Eve we note its 5th Anniversary. Previous annual appropriations bills funding national defense were mostly procedural but it was the addition of two sections, buried deep within the over 600 page document, that potentially gutted the Bill of Rights for American citizens thought by the President to be assisting the enemy, that so upset constitutionalists and libertarians.

Subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” authorized the president to apply the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the 2001 congressional document used to justify war on Iraq, now broadly to all thought to be terrorists—including Americans living in the states far from any battlefield. The military would be used to find, arrest and “detain covered persons…pending disposition under the law of war.” Translated, this means military tribunals and prisons and no Bill of Rights. U.S. law; local law enforcement agents, juries, courts and judges would be excluded, all on the whim of but one man—the president. Moreover there exists no requirement to notify local authority when one is “kidnaped” (captured and detained), or transferred out of the country, as for example to Guantanamo Bay, or detained indefinitely. President Obama did promise that he would not use it against US citizens. This power will be transferred to Donald Trump January 20, 2017.

Constitutionalists and libertarians, notably Senator Rand Paul and Dianne Feinstein, have worked hard to at least modify these two sections. Newer versions do have Sections 1031-1033 that portend to affirm the rights of due process and habeas corpus but opponents of newer NDAA’s are certain that it is not enough to get back to pre 2011 constitutional protections. Senator Feinstein noted that her goal “was to ensure the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists.”

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War, forbade the U.S. military from performing law enforcement functions on American soil. The American Civil Liberties Union warned in 2011, “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.” When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Senator John McCain said yes. Senator Lindsey Graham was more blunt. “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

With at least three generals in the Trump cabinet it is questionable whether they will advise Trump to return to the constitutional protections heretofore in place. But it will be a major test of his sincerity respecting separating himself from the establishment, both Republican and Democratic, who together, have imposed this upon all Americans. Cosponsors of the disturbing changes were Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, the latter Trump deeply offended in his presidential campaign. Neither is likely to abandon what they created without a serious fight.

Some things are very clear in the sections disputed. The terms “terrorists” and “affiliates” are not adequately defined, the President is given too much power, and they violate the U.S. Constitution, which everyone voting affirmatively swore to uphold. It is hard to trust the government’s definition of terrorist when Vice President Joe Biden, once referred to Tea Partiers as terrorists and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as mobsters (a term also implying a threat to society). What guarantee do we have that the “new” enemy does not simply rotate to anyone defined as “anti-government,” citizen or not?

Presidents have not proved particularly trustworthy in the past with respect to the Constitution and civil liberty. Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the stroke of a pen, detained over 110,000 Japanese Americans in “relocation camps” (Japanese-Americans called them concentration camps) in World War II on the basis of race and potential terrorism. Why should we have confidence in any president to not use this power as “seemeth” him good?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus found in Article I, Section 9 recognized that some day war might exist on our soil and that the accused had rights that might have to be momentarily delayed until recognized civilian authority could reasonably attend to them. It allowed this delay in only two circumstances “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Section 9 provides a list of powers specifically denied Congress; nor were they given to the President in Article II. This strongly suggests no federal role outside the two parameters, rebellion or invasion. The removal of any civilian role and the carting off of U.S. citizens to a foreign place without benefit of civilian judge or jury obliterates this right.

The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duties previously rendered by civil authorities is unconscionable in a free society. Ninety-three senators voted for this bill. Only seven understood the Constitution well enough to defend it and vote no. These were Democrats Tom Harkin, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden and Republicans Rand Paul, Thomas Coburn, Mike Lee.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.