Black military budgets are unconstitutional

This is from Article I, section 9 from the Constitution of the United States:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

I'm no scholar on the constitution, but it seems to me that appropriating monies for undisclosed Department of Defense projects is against the meaning of said paragraph above. It explicitly says: statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published.

How does the Department of Defense legally solve this problem? I know that this post seems non-sensical, because it's the job of the DoD to secretly R&D next generation weapons systems, but can they simply disregard the Constitution?

reply to post by Nichiren


The answer would be to grant immunity to all involved.

That would work.

It is self explanatory... they are "Black military budgets", in essence they do not exist so to speak.

You can't go after something that can't be proven to exist. One of the many loopholes that have been created to circumvent the constitution.

Originally posted by TwiTcHomatic
It is self explanatory... they are "Black military budgets", in essence they do not exist so to speak.

Yet we find them because of what they consume.

For example, 2.7 trillion went missing from the Pentagon then a black Op took out the evidence.

That money went to fund other secret operations.

These things do leave traces, but just try telling the public about them - they'll laugh at you.

Constitution, whats that? Oh that damn thing the government wipes its ass with. I wish we had some way of turning these idiots before it all comes crashing down. Hey check out my thread-here is an idea-sorry-A Delaration of Sovereignty

reply to post by Exuberant1


You may find a questionable "budget amount".. but without a specific activity applied to it, it still proves nothing.

That is the problem... and that is their loophole.

If the funds went to the DOD, then that's a line item.

It is appropriated.

Neither do they break down every nail or potato they buy.

Well it's not just "Black military budget" Programs that we should be looking out for. I'd let you all know what they were but that's Classified.

reply to post by Nichiren


Of course they aren't constitutional.

They are black military because they are operating in secrecy because their objectives may not always be considered legal.

It is quite the gravy train isn't it? I mean if all black projects and black ops were axed today NOT A DIME were to ever go to them again what would happen? We would lift out of recession that's what would happen. Teachers would get paid better, nurses would get paid better, country wide infrastructure would improve, taxes would go down... the list goes on and on. The way I see it is WE HAVE 1,000'S OF NUKES! What the hell else do we need? We have won the game of mutually assured destruction. Do we need a trillion dollar mach 8 spy plane when the country is in the crapper?

[edit on 18-9-2009 by reasonable]

For as much as they spend on these Black budgets we better be getting the bang for our bucks.


Inside the Black Budget

Skulls. Black cats. A naked woman riding a killer whale. Grim reapers. Snakes. Swords. Occult symbols. A wizard with a staff that shoots lightning bolts. Moons. Stars. A dragon holding the Earth in its claws.

No, this is not the fantasy world of a 12-year-old boy.

It is, according to a new book, part of the hidden reality behind the Pentagon’s classified, or “black,” budget that delivers billions of dollars to stealthy armies of high-tech warriors. The book offers a glimpse of this dark world through a revealing lens — patches — the kind worn on military uniforms.

The classified budget of the Defense Department, concealed from the public in all but outline, has nearly doubled in the Bush years, to $32 billion. That is more than the combined budgets of the Food and Drug Administration, the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

Black military budgets are unconstitutional

The very nature of Covert Operations (AKA: Black Projects) makes them unconstitutional. (they violate the sovereignty of other nations, the rights of our own citizens, etc) That is why the CIA is involved with the most profitable business in the world (drugs) so they do not have to show a "receipt" or be "accountable" to anyone.

Besides, as the guy above wrote; what constitution?

The constitution that grants congress with only 17 specific legislative powers?.
(All other legislative powers are to be with the states, or the people)

The constitution that gives Congress the authority to only use their legislative power for the general welfare of the people?
(not for select/special groups)


A few more examples of unconstitutional:

On July 1, 1862, the first income tax was passed by an act of Congress. In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court determined the income tax was unconstitutional and nullified it. The 16th Amendment (1913) was created to circumvent the constitution.


The constitution states that only congress shall control the nations money supply and shall not delegate its duties or responsibilities. Therefore the Federal Reserve Act (1913) is unconstitutional.


The constitution specifically prohibits creating a federal police force. Yet, after several suspicious (False Flag) bombings, President Wilson claimed the government was "handicapped by the secrecy of these groups and by limited Federal law enforcement capabilities". This justified creating the new Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Note: to justify this, they blew up the attorney generals house (of course no one was home and the house was over insured)


In 1975 a Congressional investigation of U.S. intelligence organizations uncovered numerous blatant unconstitutional activities. The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed classified materials from CIA Director Colby. Colby refused to transfer sensitive material. Congressman Michael J. Harrington was dropped from the House investigation committee as a security risk when he fought to disclose facts of CIA operations in Chile. It was Colby who singled out Harrington as a security risk


In 1996, the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a congressional report estimating that the clandestine service part of the intelligence community "easily" violates "extremely serious laws" in countries around the world, 100,000 times every year.


U.S. District Court Judge Milton Schwartz rendered an order barring Rodney Stich --for life--from federal court access (which is obstruction of justice, as well as unconstitutional)


The Patriot Act (created before 911) is over 500 pages of unconstitutional legislation.



Those who control our government have a motto:

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer"


As one of their servants admitted:

"There's a government, inside the government, and I don't control it"

- Bill Clinton.

Thank you for all your comments!

star and flag...thats right...secrets against its own people are both immoral and unconstitutional.

but...the obvious reasons in my opinion could be justified considering the amount of pressure during the cold war....

but the cold war is over and there is no great threat to americas sovereignty...

the research and weapons created with these budgets need to be disclosed.

this a great reason why i don think the budget of the united states or the gdp even matters anymore..somewhere down the line real economics gave way to -"as long as everyone is working" we can just print whatever money we need to do whatever we want...and create a facade that is our monetary policy..i dont think any financial statistic holds any water any more...and here is great evidence for that argument...

i think one day after the baby boomer generation we will find out much of that dark secret world...the sooner the better.

US military budget for 2009: 650 billion dollars. It is guestimated that 50 billion go to "black projects".

Originally posted by Nichiren
This is from Article I, section 9 from the Constitution of the United States:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

I'm no scholar on the constitution, but it seems to me that appropriating monies for undisclosed Department of Defense projects is against the meaning of said paragraph above. It explicitly says: statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published.

How does the Department of Defense legally solve this problem? I know that this post seems non-sensical, because it's the job of the DoD to secretly R&D next generation weapons systems, but can they simply disregard the Constitution?

Oh how I wish you were correct.

First, you have to prove that the money comes from the treasury, which is very unlikely. The most plausable explanation is the filtering of money through drug and weapons trade.

Second, you only took a part of the quote to make your judgment. Is says: " a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time".

They do make statements about it from time to time. They do:"September 2001 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), Pentagon had incurred $3.4 trillion of “undocumentable transactions,”

www.thewe.cc...

"Undocumentable transactions" is a statement on where that money went.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

"Undocumentable transactions" is a statement on where that money went.

True, but it's clearly circumventing the COTUS and it's twisting the wording. Also, "Undocumentable transactions" doesn't give any "account of receipts" IMHO.

Since the constitution defines money as gold or silver coin, I don't think it will be a problem at all for the government to prove it isn't spending money on black projects at all.

However, what you and I consider to be money IS being spent. Lots of it. We pay via inflation and devaluation of our fiat currency to support all kinds of things we wouldn't normally spend money on, and to increase the wealth of a class that is parasitic.

Consider this: The SR-71 Blackbird is the fastest aircraft the U.S. has, but it began service in 1964. In the 45 years since, we haven't developed anything faster than this, despite the many trillions spent on further research and development.

Do you believe that the only technological breakthrough since then has been "stealth" technology, which the Blackbird actually incorporates to some degree in its design even in 1964?

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

"Undocumentable transactions" is a statement on where that money went.

True, but it's clearly circumventing the COTUS and it's twisting the wording. Also, "Undocumentable transactions" doesn't give any "account of receipts" IMHO.

Thats just it though. Law is all about semantics. An "account of receipts" is nothing more than saying they went somewhere. I can say I went to the city yesterday.. Thats "an account of my actions" without being specific in any way.

Also, it says "from time to time". That could be every 100 years. Completely open to interpretation.

Finally, the only way any of this is relevant is if you can prove the money comes through the treasury. Good luck on that.