The Great Ag
31st May 2010, 05:10 AM
In general discussion, Ponce started a thread regarding how the gov't, might, in an extreme emergency suspend the US CON.
It is my contention, that it already is and I reproduce my post here, so that it may be read by more people. It is no longer a matter of debate whether the gov't can or cannot suspend the US CON, because it was done in 1861.
This is a definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed:
National Emergency: A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war."
We have been in a state of "national emergency" since 1933 and arguably since 1861.
The question is, does a "national emergency" OR a "state of war" demand the temporary suspension of the US CON?
First, the US CON does NOT provide for a different set of rules during an emergency. There are a few provisions for a mini-emergency, such as Art 1, Section 9
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended UNLESS when in cases of invasion or rebellion, the public safety my require it.
The Crafters of the US CON, did NOT permit the US CON to be suspended, regardless of the situation. Please note, several CONStitutions around the world do have "emergency" provisions in them. India and South Africa are two examples, and both clearly set what parts of the CONS are suspended and have placed limits on the length of suspension. In regards to the US CON, there is NO provision. This means the gov't CANNOT LEGALLY suspend the document. Ah, but when has the gov't cared about anything being legal? There is a legal maxim stating, necessity knows no laws. Can the gov't, in an effort to maintain its survival, do whatever is necessary? That is the crux of the situation! Which is paramount: survival of the law or gov't?
Let's examine history in the USA: Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus without Congress' approval. FDR interned hundreds of thousands of Americans with Japanese ancestry during WWII who had not committed any crime. Truman nationalized the steel mills during the Korean War to ensure enough steel for the war effort. What is interesting, is that after the necessity, the courts have ALWAYS stated, you can't do that. For example the US Supreme Court stated in Ex Parte Milligan in 1866, after the War between the States:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace. . .no doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
It seems, historically, Presidents and CONgress can bend the law in an emergency, but once it has passed, legal systems in place, remedy the breach.
HOWEVER, this assumes the US CON is in place and functioning. What if the US CON has been suspended? What if we currently exist under a war-time gov't of paramount force?
From Black's Law Dictionary 5th ed:[/u
Government de facto: A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government du jure. [u]A government deemed unlawful, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
There are several degrees of what is called "de facto government.: Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristics of such a government is that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and , under certain limitation, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general be respected by the government de jure when restored. Such a government might be more aptly denominated a "government of paramount force," being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually adminisitered directly my military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 1, 19 L.Ed. 361.
This definition of government de facto comes from an actual court case in 1868 whereby the Court accurately described the US gov't. It is my opinion we still have a government de facto in place. As such, it "pretends" to adhere to the US CON, but in fact can do anything it wants, whenever it wants.
Can the US CON be suspended? I think it already is, but the gov't in place gives lip service to it to keep the citizens ignorant.
For support of my opinion here the definition for government de jure, also from Black's 5th ed.
Government de jure: A government of right; the true and lawful government; a government established according to the constitution of the nation, and lawfully entitled to cognition and supremacy and the administration of the nation, but which is actually cut off from power or control. A government deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just, which nevertheless, has been supplanted or displaced; that is to say, which receives not presently (although it received formerly) habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
See folks, we do NOT have a lawful government in place. In its stead is a military gov't of paramount force who closely resembles the de jure gov't.
My question is, why vote? You are voting for an unlawful gov't which is actively using you and stealing your labor for its benefit.
STOP VOTING for this. Withdraw your consent! Vote with your feet and do ANYTHING but vote.
The Great Ag
It is my contention, that it already is and I reproduce my post here, so that it may be read by more people. It is no longer a matter of debate whether the gov't can or cannot suspend the US CON, because it was done in 1861.
This is a definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed:
National Emergency: A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war."
We have been in a state of "national emergency" since 1933 and arguably since 1861.
The question is, does a "national emergency" OR a "state of war" demand the temporary suspension of the US CON?
First, the US CON does NOT provide for a different set of rules during an emergency. There are a few provisions for a mini-emergency, such as Art 1, Section 9
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended UNLESS when in cases of invasion or rebellion, the public safety my require it.
The Crafters of the US CON, did NOT permit the US CON to be suspended, regardless of the situation. Please note, several CONStitutions around the world do have "emergency" provisions in them. India and South Africa are two examples, and both clearly set what parts of the CONS are suspended and have placed limits on the length of suspension. In regards to the US CON, there is NO provision. This means the gov't CANNOT LEGALLY suspend the document. Ah, but when has the gov't cared about anything being legal? There is a legal maxim stating, necessity knows no laws. Can the gov't, in an effort to maintain its survival, do whatever is necessary? That is the crux of the situation! Which is paramount: survival of the law or gov't?
Let's examine history in the USA: Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus without Congress' approval. FDR interned hundreds of thousands of Americans with Japanese ancestry during WWII who had not committed any crime. Truman nationalized the steel mills during the Korean War to ensure enough steel for the war effort. What is interesting, is that after the necessity, the courts have ALWAYS stated, you can't do that. For example the US Supreme Court stated in Ex Parte Milligan in 1866, after the War between the States:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace. . .no doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
It seems, historically, Presidents and CONgress can bend the law in an emergency, but once it has passed, legal systems in place, remedy the breach.
HOWEVER, this assumes the US CON is in place and functioning. What if the US CON has been suspended? What if we currently exist under a war-time gov't of paramount force?
From Black's Law Dictionary 5th ed:[/u
Government de facto: A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government du jure. [u]A government deemed unlawful, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
There are several degrees of what is called "de facto government.: Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristics of such a government is that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and , under certain limitation, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general be respected by the government de jure when restored. Such a government might be more aptly denominated a "government of paramount force," being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually adminisitered directly my military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 1, 19 L.Ed. 361.
This definition of government de facto comes from an actual court case in 1868 whereby the Court accurately described the US gov't. It is my opinion we still have a government de facto in place. As such, it "pretends" to adhere to the US CON, but in fact can do anything it wants, whenever it wants.
Can the US CON be suspended? I think it already is, but the gov't in place gives lip service to it to keep the citizens ignorant.
For support of my opinion here the definition for government de jure, also from Black's 5th ed.
Government de jure: A government of right; the true and lawful government; a government established according to the constitution of the nation, and lawfully entitled to cognition and supremacy and the administration of the nation, but which is actually cut off from power or control. A government deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just, which nevertheless, has been supplanted or displaced; that is to say, which receives not presently (although it received formerly) habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
See folks, we do NOT have a lawful government in place. In its stead is a military gov't of paramount force who closely resembles the de jure gov't.
My question is, why vote? You are voting for an unlawful gov't which is actively using you and stealing your labor for its benefit.
STOP VOTING for this. Withdraw your consent! Vote with your feet and do ANYTHING but vote.
The Great Ag