Suspension Of Rights Under Martial Law

It's been a while since I reviewed the laws pertaining to the power of Executive Orders.

Some of our regular members may already be familiar with these laws, but in consideration
of current events, I think it is VITALLY IMPORTANT that all of us understand what has been written
into law and how these laws present a tremendous risk for abuse.

A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed at the stroke of a pen.

The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."

The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a "drug crisis". It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas. This, teamed with the Executive Orders of the President, enables Orwellian prophecies to rest on whoever occupies the White House. The power provided by these "laws" allows suspension of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights during any civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes and allows the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of Martial Law.

When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.

Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."

more
www.sonic.net...





[edit on 24-7-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]

I had been looking for this information for awhile. Thanks for reposting it.

Your post is not entirely accurate. Executive Orders do not become laws by being published in the Federal Register. They are mandates....or the Presidents opinion of the law. I'm not trying to pick on you, but I wanted to suggest that you research this farther.

I'm sorry but Zenlover is exactly right. All laws flow from the powers granted in the constitution, so constitutionality cannot be set aside. This is guaranteed by the power of the SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus, orders to officials who are normally under the control of the executive compelling them to execute their duty.

Many of our constitutional rights are phrased in the "shall not..." format. If I may quote those cute little Christian billboards... "what part of thou shalt not" don't you understand? Shall not is not just a random selection of words. It carries with it a legal precedent which allows no exceptions.

Were an executive order to abridge a constitutional right, it would last a maximum of 7 days; a case would be filed on the original jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, they would issue any necessary writs compelling law enforcement and the military either not to enforce the offending orders or perhaps even to arrest those who did follow such orders, and then there are basically two possibilities;
1. The majority of law enforcement follow the court's order to uphold the constitution.
2. The majority of law enforcement does not do so and there is a clear casus belli for revolution. Many states would order their law enforcement to take action in this case, so you'd probably see FBI offices etc raided by local cops, and you could concievably see national guard units moving to face off with federal troops at bases in their states. That's not even to mention what those of us with temper problems might decide to do on our own. You think terrorism is a problem right now? Wait till its the patriots who are doing it. Right now well under 1% of the people in America are likely to be terrorists. If the government earns the ire of patriots, it could be more like 10%+


I for one like my lazy, peaceful, sloppy little American life. I am not fond of the idea that a revolution might have to interrupt that. I think most people share somewhat similar sentiments. All the same, a lot of us simply wouldn't stand for it if they tried to impose martial law. The US Army is nowhere near large enough to quell a popular rebellion- if it even would try. It's large enough to cut off our food and water and just kill us all, but not to come into our cities and enforce a tyrants orders on us.