Apr 13, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered the last fifty years. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). A law’s review by 536 individuals (435 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived the rigid scrutiny of both branches and bore the signature of the President.
In light of the President’s recent Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness, signed March 16, 2012, which should be the focus of considerable media attention, we need to examine the constitutionality of the executive order process that increasingly allows the executive branch to replace Congress as the principal law-making branch. But first a reminder of what this Executive Order does.
By a mere stroke of the pen President Barack Obama renewed and expanded the Bill Clinton, June 3,1994, National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness, Executive Order 12919, that authorized the executive department’s take-over, in case of a national emergency, of all civil transportation including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). National emergency was never adequately defined therefore, presumably, left to the discretion of the President alone as to when such conditions warranted his implementation or removal of the emergency.
Section 102 of the Obama decree broadened the Clinton E.O. to apply “in peacetime and in national emergency” which means that parts of the edict are in effect with his signature alone without any emergency identified. We no longer need to wait for an emergency. Moreover, according to Section 103(b), compliance can be forced upon all needed “subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel.” Imagine private contractors being required to serve against their will. Conspicuously omitted was any role for Congress in this “martial law type” edict.
Today, though the E.O. process, the President makes half as many laws (decrees if you prefer) as does the Legislative Branch—about three a week. Some few laws of Congress need a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. This he did by Executive Order, which was constitutional. An executive order, if it simply implements a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is fine. But, when he instead takes multiple pieces of many laws passed by ancient congresses, he effectively creates new law without any review and unconstitutionally usurps the powers of Congress. This has happened through much of the 20th Century.
Even more blatantly unconstitutional is the practice of presidents, beginning with Richard Nixon, of not even attempting to justify their Executive Orders with ancient pieces of authorization, instead, just decreeing something to be law. These are known as presidential decrees and differ little from monarchical, or dictatorial decrees.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order opens, as all do, with a statement of authority that one must scrutinize to determine if the President is making new law or carrying out a specific, recent, congressional request. “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S. C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3. United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:” is designed to sound official. If the reader cannot specifically go to the source of authority and read it, then the general statement is but window dressing. Phrases “as President by the Constitution” or, “as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces” establish no specific authority. The Constitution gives no authority for such an edict. One, recently cited, law by Congress specifically requesting the President to do something is definitely needed to make this executive order valid and the best the President was able to do was go back sixty-two years and make up stuff to go with the 1950 law as Bill Clinton did in 1994.
Except for the few executive orders which require a statement of implementation by the president, all other types of executive orders are unconstitutional and must stop. If they do not, the inevitable will happen—Congress will nullify itself and dictatorial decrees will be the standard.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 9, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
The most dangerous executive order (hereafter EO) ever written (exempting Franklin Roosevelt’s EO throwing Japanese-Americans into relocation camps against their will in World War II) was EO 12919 of June 3, 1994. By a mere stroke of the pen President Bill Clinton authorized the executive department’s take-over, in case of a national emergency, of all civil transportation including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.”
National emergency was never adequately defined therefore, presumably, left to the discretion of the President alone as to when such conditions warranted his implementation of it. Nor were circumstances noted when such would end allowing the return of confiscated property and the free movement of the people again. Nor was there any noted role for Congress. Nor was there any role noted for local civil authority—the first responders. Nor was it explained why the president needed near dictatorial power in a national emergency and had not in crisis heretofore. There was no debate.
Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). The detail was incredible. Every possibility considered. Some concern and fear was expressed at the time about this “martial law type” edict but since the president did not act on it, nor did it seem reasonable that he or any future president would, twas soon forgotten. Imagine all this power in the hands of one person. It sounded more likely to be enacted in a communist or fascist country.
On March 16 of this year the infamous Clinton Executive Order was revoked by President Barack Obama and replaced by the equally threatening and expanded National Defense Resources Preparedness. The new EO retains all of the dreaded portions of the 1994 Clinton one, as noted above, but Section 102 of the Obama decree broadens it to apply “in peacetime and in national emergency.” Moreover, according to Section 103(b), compliance can be forced upon all needed “subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel.” Imagine private contractors being required to serve against their will. In wartime such a requirement would normally be given voluntarily, but in peacetime?
Where is our elected Congress specifically charged with making all federal rules with respect to a free people as stipulated in Article I, Section I of the Constitution? The EO essentially replaces them on national defense—their most important responsibility. The EO reads in part, “The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policy making forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President.” An “integrated policy making forum?” Isn’t that what Congress is supposed to be?
To administrate the new self-empowering edict that, as a result of Obama’s Executive Order has peacetime application as well, the EO creates the National Defense Executive Reserve. The President’s NDER is to be “composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government … for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.” A huge new bureaucracy supported by the taxpayer without one ounce of congressional authority—even debate—is created by the stroke of the pen of just one man. The Secretary of Homeland Security is also “to determine periods of national defense emergency.” This implies continued national emergencies that justify continued “martial law like” monitoring of the people in the name of national emergency.
The most dangerous Executive Order in our history, unless you were Japanese-American in World War II, is alive and well and even more threatening under President Obama. If Congress continues its trend of ignoring her sole rule-making jurisdiction, it may soon make itself irrelevant. Unfortunately, it also makes the people and their constitution irrelevant as well. Perhaps your Congressman does not yet know about this liberty threatening Executive Order semi-secretly signed in the Oval Office of the White House. Will you tell him so that he can step up to the plate and defend you?
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Mar 26, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Take Action
By Dr Harold W. Pease
Recent presidents have so mutilated the clear language of the Constitution as to the authority to make war that congressional pushback, even from the weak Congress we now have, was inevitable. That pushback came in a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey inferred that the authority that he depended upon was not from Congress, as required in the U. S. Constitution, but from unelected UN or NATO authorities. Senator Jeff Sessions, Chairman of the Committee, then interviewed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and was given the same response. Disbelieving what he heard, Sessions repeatedly inquired in different ways only to be given the same answer. (See video below) Even the President’s voice did not appear to be as important as that of the UN or NATO.
Constitutional clarity is so strong with respect to Congress alone having sole power of war that it is hard to imagine that such statements are due to gross ignorance alone. This is one of the most critical moments in U. S. History with respect to liberty. If the Executive Branch of government can effectively remove the power to initiate war from Congress, giving it to itself, and then to some international coalition such as the U. N. or NATO, we essentially lose our sovereignty and our armies used as the policemen of the world. Would not the recipient of such power, the United Nations, not then become the dreaded world government? Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, preserving Americas right to fight whomever, would be effectively destroyed.
To protect the Constitution and to keep the Congress from having but a ceremonial jurisdiction with respect to war, as the General and Defense Secretary inferred, the House of Representatives is attempting to place the president on short notice that the next disregard of Congress would be grounds for impeachment. Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107 reads, “Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
This action has resulted, not only because General Dempsey and Defense Secretary Panetta have expressed a desire to take such power, but also because doing so has been the practice of the Obama Administration. Congress was not consulted when American planes bombed Libya, or when President Obama, alone, authorized Special Forces to inter Central America last fall, or his authorizing drone strikes in several middle-eastern countries killing designated individuals—all such have traditionally been considered acts of war. Certainly these would be treated as acts of war were they perpetrated on U.S. soil by another country.
This action is especially timely as war proponent John McCain is now advocating that we enforce a no fly zone over Syria—another act of war on yet another country. Moreover, we continue to provoke Iran in an attempt to get it to make a response worthy of our (or Israel’s) warplanes. Where do we get authority to bomb other countries at executive will? Certainly not from the people, or their Constitution.
Please encourage your three members of Congress to protect the Constitution. Are they on board with this warning to this president and all who follow him? Are they cosponsors of this resolution? No issue is clearer than this one as to whether they support the Constitution or do not. Congress alone should decide when and if our sons and daughters are placed in harm’s way. Anyone supporting this transfer of power from Congress should be removed from power by your vote this November or, if president and it happens again, impeached, regardless of political party, as soon as possible. After all it is about your liberty.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&w=420&h=315]
Mar 1, 2012 | Economy, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
Three of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates and the present occupant of the White House appear to be, or are favorable to, provoking Iran for a response worthy of a preemptive strike. Only Ron Paul, of our options for president, is decidedly against.
Forgive me for not believing that the world is flat, as did virtually everyone before Columbus and that Iraq had something to do with 9 /11, or that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction as President George W. Bush told us. Once again, I feel drawn into another Middle East black hole of lies, no end wars, death of our young men and women, loss of our treasure, and yet another Patriot Act which only limits the liberties of American citizens. History repeats itself, but why so soon?
It seems to hinge on whether Iran is that close to getting a deployable nuclear weapon and if it really matters if it does? In a compelling article by Charles Scaliger, “Is it Nuts to Let Iran Go Nuclear?” recently published in The New American, Scaliger argues that our interests in the Middle East “boil down to oil and Israel.”
Oil should not be a major concern to us as we have a plentiful supply on “Alaska’s North Slope and the east and west coasts of the United States.” Presently, and strangely, these resources are made off-limits to drilling by our own government resulting in prices at the pump soaring to $4.40 per gallon; so inept are we in utilizing our natural resources. The price of gasoline per gallon when Barack Obama took office was $1.87. Moreover, we have access to the “Athabasca tar sands of northern Alberta (the world’s second largest oil reserves)” but instead our president vetoes the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would relieve our price pain by bringing crude oil into the United States. Instead, we prefer the “added costs (political and military as well as economic) of continuing to ship in our oil from hostile countries on the other side of the world.” All this brings meaning to the old adage, “We looked and the enemy was us.”
The second reason for caring about the Middle East is Israel. But Israel has demonstrated for over 40 years that it is quite capable of defending herself. As a young boy, I remember well when six nations in 1967, each larger than Israel, attacked this tiny nation and she defeated them all in just six days. It was called the Six Day War. I was envious of her strength and valor as the U.S. at the time was mired down in Vietnam, fighting an enemy equal to the population of New York State and geographically the size of Missouri. We lost that war. They met similar odds against Israel with similar results in 1948 and in 1973. Scaliger reminds us that in 1981 the Israeli Air Force destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq and in 2007 a nuclear facility in Syria. If Iran attacked Israel, there is little doubt who would win. Israel does not need our onsite protection.
But what if Iran did get a nuclear weapon as feared? Scaliger reminds us that China had one in 1964 but did not have the delivery system to put it on American soil for thirty years. India took 25 years “to go from its first nuclear test to the actual production of nuclear weapons….” and it took their Pakistani neighbors 26 years. Why the long delay? “Developing nuclear weapons requires mastery of a number of intricate technologies, among them engineering centrifuge cascades….” Scaliger notes, “There is a very big difference between having a nuclear ‘device’ and having nuclear weapons.” Iran is “many years away from creating a deliverable nuclear weapon that could threaten Saudi Arabia or Israel and probably decades away from creating an ICBM or submarine-launched missile that could menace the American mainland.”
Don’t forget that all Middle Eastern countries know that a nuke on Israel means nukes on them from us, and we do not need to be present to deliver. Mutual Assure Destruction (MAD) kept the peace during the “Cold War,” it will in the Middle East for the same reason.
So why is there all the hype? I cannot answer fully but suggest that we look to who benefits from perpetual war—The Council on Foreign Relations in its bid for world dominance and the industries that make the weapons of war. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first to warn us of the military industrial complex; perhaps it is time to take his warning seriously.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Jan 24, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Republican Presidential Debate held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina finally brought to light a real divide, other than on Iran, between the candidates. The issue was The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama December 31, 2011, with Ron Paul and Rick Santorum viewing it as a threat to civil liberty and unconstitutional and Mitt Romney decidedly supporting it. Neither Rick Perry nor Newt Gingrich was asked to give their view. I could find nothing in print revealing a position for either on the extremely controversial law. This is very unfortunate as Sections 1031 and 1032 authorize the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial—even on U.S. soil. Since either could be the one exercising this power we should know where they stand.
Popularly referred to as the “indefinite detention act” the new law authorizes the military to arrest citizens suspected of being terrorists on the say-so of the president or the military alone. No real proof needed. It voids the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibiting the military any law enforcement authority on U.S. soil and voids much of the Bill of Rights as well. Americans now can be extradited to Guantanamo without benefit of trial, judge, or jury and held indefinitely—even tortured (see Section 1068). Activists on both the left and right vehemently oppose it, the one believing that it could eventually be twisted to apply to Occupy Wall Street participants and the other Tea Party participants. Each group has been referred to as terrorists by their enemies.
As mentioned the strongest support for The National Defense Authorization Act came from Mitt Romney. When asked if he would have signed the bill into law as had President Obama, Romney answered emphatically, “Yes, I would have.” He continued. “I do believe it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues, but you don’t have a right to join a group that has challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.” That may be Governor, but only after they have been tried and convicted in accordance with the Bill of Rights with the assumption that they are innocent until proven guilty.
Romney recognized that such power exercised by one man could be abused “but I don’t think he (President Obama) will abuse this power, and if I were president I would not abuse this power,” he said. How naïve! This reminds me of the famous Richard Nixon statement with respect to his authorization to break into Watergate. “If the President does it, it is not a crime.” Therein lies the problem. President Obama may never abuse such power, nor may a “President” Romney, but somewhere down the line some president will have his enemies defined as terrorists and removed. The Constitution is written to protect us from that person. With opposition destroyed so would be liberty. No president should have such power. The Founding Fathers never allowed such trust in one person in the Constitution.
Such naivety is dangerous as is candidate Romney’s understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Both flaws should cast doubt on his ability to protect these documents and lead a free people. Moreover, on the subject of treason, which a civil trial would determine, the Constitution requires the “witness of two or more to an overt act;” clearly not the voice of just one man who could benefit personally by the action.
Fortunately to his credit, Rick Santorum chimed in. “A U.S. citizen who is detained as an enemy combatant should have the right to a lawyer and to appeal their case before a federal court.” Unfortunately, no other candidate was invited to respond to this important question, but it was obvious that Ron Paul was not going to be ignored on the subject. Although not asked, he was able to get into the debate that holding American citizens indefinitely is a breach of the U.S. judicial system. An Internet search revealed much public discourse from him, and only him, in opposition to this law.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 13, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Tea Party
Dr. Harold Pease
The Republican Presidential Primaries have obscured the President’s late December signing of the most damaging law to the Bill of Rights in my lifetime. Known as the National Defense Authorization Act the over 600 page, $662 billion law “would 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. In my commentary on this law in early December (see “New Bill Damages Bill of Rights and Could Target Americans for Military Detention,” LibertyUnderFire.org), I noted that the law gave no protection from a revolving definition of terrorism to anti-government, perhaps even Tea Partiers or Occupy Wall Street folks.
The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duty, heretofore rendered by civil authorities, is unconscionable in a free society. Our only hope was a promised Presidential veto which did not happen. Therefore, what follows are details on how the new law emasculates the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights.
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 is a list of powers specifically denied Congress; nor were they given to the President in Article II. This strongly suggests no federal role outside these two parameters in the delay of justice—certainly no military role. The removal of any civilian role and the carting off of U.S. citizens to a foreign country without benefit of judge or jury obliterates this right.
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. Tell this to the young soldiers just following orders. Freedom dies when this amendment dies.
Amendment 5 has several parts that are affected by the new 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. The amendment does have a short-term exclusion “when in actual service in time of war or public danger” but the National Defense Authorization Act is a permanent exclusion rather than a temporary one and this brief exclusion should only hold when the enemy has brought war to our soil.
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.” The new law destroys the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. 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 new law will obliterate Amendment 8 for those the President and his military define as terrorists. The protection against cruel and unusual punishment for them ends and torture is justified. Does anyone really think that the military will care about excessive fines or bail either?
Sadly both parties, despite their oath to preserve the Constitution, are responsible for this bill. There was bipartisan support for it. Unbelievably, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate from either party to speak out against it.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
