Gets Hearing X-Priority: 2 (High) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by neti.saber.net id IAA21585 To: undisclosed-recipients:; 10.28.99 Exec. Orders--Legal or Illegal// Separation of Powers Restoration Bill Gets Hearing Received from Gwenn is a collection of well-researched explorations of the subject of the validity of executive "orders", proclamations and the like in terms of their legal weight. In other words; do these executive orders have the force of genuine, legislated LAW? Of course NOT, but fascistic thugs beholden to globalist, totalitarian bigwigs at all levels of corrupt government will be trying to make us all BELIEVE that the "EOs" ARE in fact law. Legal scholars and the like agree: these EXECUTIVE ORDERS, of which our current abuser-in-chief has written more than any other previous president--are most ABSOLUTELY NOT in the same legal category as duly legislated laws, ands nothing will make them so. It's up to US to say the emperor has no clothes... granted, a truly repugnant task; given that in this case the emperor is none other than Billy "Hangs Sideways' Blythe (Klinton).. scourge of decent women everywhere= . What's even MORE urgent is to DEMAND that those spineless whiners and wankers in Congress OBEY the WILL of the people on this issue and vote in support of the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, Congressman Ron Paul's Bill HR 2655, which seeks to immediately and henceforth severely curtail on a retroactive basis these extra-legal "proclamations" and what they've sought to implement. The ever-growing avalanche of these executive orders has become a cancerous proliferation which threatens to erode and undermine any semblance whatsoever of a functional democratic republic in the United State= s. This rapidly-deteriorating situation concerns EVERYONE across the entire political spectrum--those who believe in freedom in the least, that is. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Reformists, Liberals... EVERYBODY stands to lose if this intolerable usurpation of powers by the chief executive is allowed to continue unchecked! =20 The situation is CRITICAL. The essays on executive orders below are followed by reports on Rep. Ron Paul's greatly-needed legislation HR 2655 and it's progress through the Congressional obstacle course, as well as an eloquent essay by Ron Paul himself on the entire executive order issue. Remember--we must DEMAND our elected representatives, Republican or Democrat or whatever, SUPPORT HR 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, as if their lives (political at least) depended on it. Because ALL our lives may be headed for some very fundamental and unpleasant changes=20 if these Executive Orders are NOT shot down! NewsHawk=AE Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Fwd: Re: Executive Orders Are Illegal Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:31:14 -0700 From: "Richard James, McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dear Richard, In support of the assertion that EO's cannot be used to legislate I draw on the writings of Henry Campbell Black, one of the best known legal writers in American history. Black authored many law books including several editions on Constitutional Law entitled "Handbook of American Constitutional Law." The first edition was published in 1895 by West Publishing Company. Second, third and fourth editions were published in 1897, 1910, and 1927 by West Publishing Company. I have a copy of the fourth edition and there are copies of all four editions here in Austin at the University of Texas law library. There's no question that the scope of EO's is, in fact, very narrow. The ever broadening scope has gone virtually unchallenged and we now have a very powerful mythology to overcome. The Seperation of Powers Restoration Act [HR 2655] is a beautiful and intelligent piece of legislation which would correct the wayward use of EO's if it were actually passed. I'm ever hopeful in this regard but realize that the majority of Congress are spineless and fear going against the ruling elite who write EO's for Clinton to rubber stamp. This impasse is not without remedy, according to Black. I've also included a section from the first edition which provides instructions on how to deal with problems such as this. I wish you all the best. J. R. Johnson Austin, Travis county, Texas ---------------------------- Here's what Black has to say about EO's. Notes from: HANDBOOK of AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. Fourth Edition; West Publishing Company. 1927 [Author of Black's Law Dictionary, and of Treatises on Judgments, Bankruptcy, Rescission of Contracts, Interpretation of Laws, Judicial Precedents, etc.] Chapter 6 EXECUTION OF THE LAWS 95. The President is required by the Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The President "is provided with the means of fulfilling this obligation by this authority to commission all the officers of the United States, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to appoint the most important of them and to fill vacancies. He is declared to be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States. The duties which are thus imposed upon him he is further enabled to perform by the recognition in the Constitution, and by the creation by acts of Congress, of executive departments, which have varied in number from four to ten, the heads of which are familiarly called cabinet ministers. These aid him in the performance of the great duties of his office, and represent him in a thousand acts to which it can hardly be supposed his personal attention is called, and thus he is enabled to fulfill the duty of his great department, expressed in the phrase that 'he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' "* But the President has no law-making power. All his powers are derived either from the Constitution or from an act of Congress, and every step he takes, in the sense of an exercise of government, must be justified by the one or the other. It is not enough that the action in question is not forbidden by statutes or by the Constitution.** If there is any "residuum" of governmental power in the United States-not provided by the Constitution-it is to the legislative department, not the executive, that it belongs. * In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55. ** UNITED STATES v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. (D.C.N.Y.) 272 F. 311, Black Cas. Constitutional Law, 64. EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATIONS 96. Proclamations may be issued by the executive from time to time, either on his own initiative or as authorized or directed by the Constitution or an act of Congress. While they have not the force of law, they are, in the latter case, of binding effect. In English law, a proclamation is "a notice publicly given of anything whereof the king thinks fit to advertise his subjects." In American law, it is a formal and official public notice, issued by the chief executive in his own name, intended for the notice of all persons who may be concerned, announcing some statute or treaty, or some public act or determination, or intended action, of the executive department, which otherwise might not be so widely or so quickly promulgated. The making of proclamations is not an assumption of legislative powers.* These documents have not the force of law, although Congress may make the taking effect of an act, or of some of its provisions, depend upon the existence of a state of facts to be ascertained and proclaimed by the President. Proclamations are issued on a great variety of occasions. It is usual in this manner to announce the admission of a new state into the Union; the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power, when it contains provisions which may affect the dealings of private persons; the intention of the United States to maintain a position of neutrality between contending powers, or the intention of the government to enforce the neutrality laws with strictness; the granting of an act of pardon or general amnesty; the reciprocity features of a commercia= l treaty or tariff act; and the annual appointment by the President of a day of public thanksgiving. Perhaps the most celebrated proclamation ever issued in this country was that by which President Lincoln announced the emancipation of the slaves. The same President, in 1861, issued a proclamation of blockade, announcing his intention to blockade all the ports of the states then in insurrection, and giving neutral vessels fifteen days from the commencement of actual blockade to leave those ports. * Sugar v. United States (C.C.A. Mich.) 252 F. 74. The authority of the President to issue proclamations is sometimes derived from acts of Congress specifically empowering him to do so in relation to a particular matter, and in other cases appears to be derived from his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In regard to the obs= ervance of neutrality laws, for instance, it may not be obligatory upon the President to warn the people of the consequences attending their infraction, but still it is eminently proper for him, at times when there is danger of a breach of those laws, to advise all persons of the intention of the government with regard to their enforcement. Executive Rules and Orders Rules and orders promulgated by the President or by the heads of departments under his authority, relating to the conduct of public business or to the civil service or other administrative matters, have not the force of law and are not statutes in any sense; and although they are effective for the internal control and government of the executive departments, courts of equity have no jurisdiction or authority to enforce them.* * Morgan v. Nunn (C.C.) 84 F. 551; Taylor v. Kercheval (C.C.) 82 F. 497; Carr v. Gordon (C.C.) 82 F. 373. And see United States Harness Co. v. Granham (D. C. W.Va.) 288 F. 929. The following text is from: Notes from: HANDBOOK of AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. First Edition; West Publishing Company. 1895 [Author of Black's Law Dictionary, and of Treatises on Judgments, Bankruptcy, Rescission of Contracts, Interpretation of Laws, Judicial Precedents, etc.] KF 4550 B55 Also on Microfiche in the Media Center (fourth floor at Tarlton Law Library) KF 209 N5, no.'s 25980-25986. RIGHT OF REVOLUTION 8. The right of revolution is the inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their polity, or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions, by force or a general uprising, when the legal and constitutional methods of making such changes have proved inadequate, or are so obstructed as to be unavailable. This right is a fundamental, natural right of the whole people, not existing in virtue of the constitution, but in spite of it. It belongs to the people as a necessary inference from the freedom and independence of the nation. But revolution is entirely outside the pale of law. "Inter armes silent leges." Circumstances alone can justify resort to the extreme measure of a revolution. In general, this right may be said to exist when tyranny or a corrupt and vicious government is entrenched in power, so that it cannot be dislodged by legal means; or when the system of government has become intolerable for other causes, and the evils to be expected from a revolutionary rising are not so great as those which must be endured under the existing order of things; when the attempt is reasonably certain to succeed; and when the new order proposed to be introduced will be more satisfactory to the people in general than that which is to be displaced. "Revolution is either a forcible breach of the established constitution or a violation of its principles. Thus, as a rule, revolutions are not matters of right, although they are mighty natural phenomena, which alter public law. Where the powers which are passionately stirred in the people are unchained, and produce a revolutionary eruption, the regular operation of constitutional law is disturbed. In the presence of revolution, law is impotent. It is, indeed, a great task of practical politics to bring back revolutionary movements as soon as possible into the regular channels of constitutional reform. There can be no right of revolution, unless exceptionally; it can only be justified by that necessity which compels a nation to save its existence or to secure its growth where the ways of reform are closed. The constitution is only the external organization of the people, and if, by means of it, the state itself is in danger of perishing, or if vital interests of the public weal are threatened, necessity knows no law." [Bluntschli, Theory of the State, 477.] [The above text is identical to that found in the 3d Ed. (1910) except for the following footnote: Bluntschli, Theory of the State, 477. "All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on that authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an unalterable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. These principles in this country are well-recognized political truths, independent of any written constitution or laws." Ridley v Sherbrook, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 569. See "United States," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) =A7 1; Cent. Dig. =A7 1.] RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS 144. The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be denied or infringed by congress or the other departments of the national government. The amendment is no restriction upon the power of the several states. [US v Cruikshank, 92 US 542; Andrews v State, 3 Heisk. 165.] Hence, unless restrained by their own constitutions, the state legislatures may enact laws to control and regulate all military organizations, and the drilling and parading of all military bodies and associations, except those which are authorized by the militia laws or the laws of the United States. [ Presser v Illinois, 116 US 252, 6 Sup. Ct. 580.] The "arms" here meant are those of a soldier. They do not include dirks, bowie knives, and such other weapons as are used in brawls, fights, and riots. The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance. [English v State, 35 Tex. 473.] And a statute providing that a homicide which would ordinarily be manslaughter shall be deemed murder if committed with a bowie knife or a dagger, is valid. It does not tend to restrict the right of the citizen to bear arms for lawful purposes, but only punishes a particular abuse of that right. [Cockrum v State, 24 Tex. 394.] This right is not infringed by a state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. Such a law is a police regulation, and is justified by the fact that the practice forbidden endangers the peace of society and the safety of individuals. [State v Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528; Haile v State, 38 Ark. 564; Wright v Com., 77 Pa. St. 470; State v Speller, 86 N. C. 697.] But a law which should prohibit the wearing of military weapons openly upon the person, would be unconstitutional. [Nunn v State, 1 Kelly (Ga.) 243. (or 213)] [My own notes from Nunn v State: A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless-it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. BEARING ARMS. - So much of the Act of 1837 as prohibited a citizen from bearing arms openly, is unconstitutional; the Legislature has the right to prescribe the mode of carrying arms, but not so that the manner prescribed amounts to a prohibition. Stockdale v State, 32 Ga 227.] ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard James, McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <Recipient list suppressed> Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 8:55 AM Subject: Executive Orders Are Illegal ARE EXECUTIVE ORDERS LEGAL Opinion by Craig Roberts, author of "The Medusa File." There has been a great deal of attention directed lately toward Clinton's overuse of Executive Orders (EOs). One of Clinton's staffers, when he first came into office, said regarding EOs: "Stroke of a pen, it becomes law...pretty cool!" And Clinton has never forgotten it. Have a great day Richard James, McDonald =3D=3D =3D=3D =3D=3D =3D=3D =3D=3D =3D=3D =3D=3D =3D=3D From: Freedom Watch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FREEDOM Watch: Paul Bill Gets Hearing: 10/27/99 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:41:40 -0400 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FREEDOM Watch A look at what's new on "Project FREEDOM." ( http://www.house.gov/paul/ ) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Issued: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paul Bill on Executive Orders Gets Hearing in House Congressman to testify on Separation of Powers WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul said he is "both pleased and=20 grateful" that two House sub-committees held hearings this week regarding=20 presidential abuse of executive orders. The Legislative and Budget Process=20 Subcommittee of the House Rules Committee meets today to discuss the issue,=20 which is the topic of Congressman Ron Paul's HR 2655, the Separation of=20 Powers Restoration Act. Paul's bill will also get a hearing tomorrow at 10 a.m. in Room 2237 of the=20 Rayburn House Office Building in the Commercial and Administrative Law=20 Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. Paul will testify on the bill and=20 will spell out why it continues to be necessary. He will address both past=20 presidential abuses of executive orders and the immediate potential for=20 further abuses, as well detailing how this legislation specifically=20 provides remedies when such abuses are attempted. Paul introduced the bill=20 on July 30, just prior to the August recess of Congress. The bill currently=20 has more than a dozen cosponsors. In his testimony, Paul states, "For far too many years, the illegitimate=20 uses (of executive orders) have overshadowed the legitimate. Presidents=20 have issued executive orders that have mistakenly taken on the semblance of=20 law. . . The Separation of Powers Restoration Act is designed to restore=20 the separation of powers between Congress and the president as set forth in=20 Articles I and II of the United States Constitution by: (1) terminating all=20 existing states of national emergency and removing from the executive=20 branch any power to declare national emergencies; (2) vesting power in=20 Congress alone to declare states of national emergency; (3) restricting=20 presidential power to issue executive orders by denying to them any force=20 of law except as provided for by Congress; and (4) repealing the 1973 War=20 Powers Resolution." Paul also points, as an example of potential further abuse, to the November=20 1st, 1999, issue of U.S. News & World Report, which states that "Clinton=20 plans a series of executive orders and changes to federal rules that he can=20 sign into law without first getting the ok from GOP naysayers. White House=20 Chief of Staff John Podesta was quoted as saying, 'There's a pretty wide=20 sweep of things we're looking to do, and we're going to be very aggressive=20 in pursuing it.'" Paul further says, "That powers have been usurped is undeniable, and that=20 our system is out of balance is evident to the most casual of observers. We=20 have the opportunity to more perfectly balance our system and restrict=20 potential abuses. That is what this bill, HR 2655, is designed to do." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------= =20 ----------------------------------- http://www.libertystudy.org/updates/pr [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: A101VNVet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [piml] Liberty Study Committee | UPDATES | Presidential Power Grab=20 by U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Texas) For those of you who didn't know. http://www.libertystudy.org/updates/presidentialpowergrab.htm October 26, 1999 Presidential Power Grab by U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Texas) Do you want our military to be moved under the United Nations=92 command=20 without congressional approval? Do you know that a change in policy now=20 requires our military to absorb a nuclear first strike and only retaliate=20 afterward? Representative Jack Metcalf served in the U.S. Army, and I was=20 an Air Force flight surgeon, and as members of the U.S. House of=20 Representatives we think these are terrible policies. Unfortunately, Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) takes the matter=20 of U.S. troops in U.N. operations completely out of the hands of Congress.=20 And PDD 60 replaces the proven deterrence of our launch-on-warning policy=20 with a new policy requiring the U.S. military to take a hit the Pentagon=20 brass will probably know is coming, retaliating afterward. PDD 25 and PDD=20 60 are classified and the exact texts have not been made available even=20 when requested by members of Congress, but from the "summary" of each PDD=20 we have been allowed to see and sources familiar with the actual documents,=20 that is what they appear to say. And we don=92t want the White House to implement international treaties that=20 are bad for America. By law, the president must submit international=20 agreements to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent, and two-thirds of the=20 senators must concur. Some treaties, like the so-called "treaty on global=20 warming," are so costly and unfair to Americans that President Clinton is=20 actually afraid to submit them to the U.S. Senate out of fear the senators=20 won=92t go along. In fact, President Clinton wrote Executive Order 13107 (EO 13107) so he=20 could implement such treaties on his own=85and we don=92t like that either. It=20 certainly is unconstitutional. Something is awfully wrong with these executive orders (PDDs are really=20 just a fancy category of EOs). True, executive orders have a place in=20 running the routine business of the executive branch and seeing that laws=20 passed by Congress are duly executed. It is a president=92s expansion of that=20 limited authority in order to do things he could never get accomplished=20 through the legitimate legislative process that has given us the crises we=20 see today. Today, if President Clinton wants a law he knows the peoples=92= =20 duly-elected representatives won=92t pass, all he does is write an EO or PDD=20 and it "becomes law." Isn=92t that what an old-fashioned king would do=85ignore=20 the constitutional limits on his authority and rule by edict? Some of us have had enough. That=92s why Jack Metcalf and I recently=20 introduced H.R. 2655 in the U.S. House of Representatives. We call the bill=20 The Separation of Powers Restoration Act, and if it passes, it will stop=20 this president and future presidents from trying to run our country as=20 though they had been elected king. It=92s a mistake, though, to place all the blame for this abuse of power on=20 any single president. Congress and the courts have stood by while the=20 misuse of executive orders has grown to gigantic proportions. That=92s why= =20 succeeding presidents have been tempted to see how much more they can get=20 away with, until there are now over 13,000 executive orders on the books!=20 Congress just isn=92t paying attention. When Congress is asleep at the switch, it=92s up to the public to send them a=20 wake-up call. In order for Representative Metcalf and I to get our=20 legislation brought to the floor of the House for debate, we are asking=20 every citizen who shares our concern to contact their own representative=20 and ask him or her to become a co-sponsor. Thanks to the Internet, that=92s a=20 lot easier than it used to be. Just go to www.ExecutiveOrders.org=20 <http://www.ExecutiveOrders.org/> and follow the simple instructions to see if your congressman is already a=20 co-sponsor of H.R. 2655, and if not, press a button to tell them to get on=20 board. If you don=92t have Internet access at home or at the office, try your=20 local library. What the president is doing with these EOs and PDDs is just un-American,=20 there=92s no other way to put it. A chief complaint American colonists made=20 against King George before the Revolutionary War was that he took powers=20 that were not rightfully his, and then as king, used those powers to the=20 disadvantage of the people. How is that different from what the president=20 is doing now? If you go to www.ExecutiveOrders.org and find your=20 representative is not a co-sponsor of H.R. 2655, will you ask him that=20 question? It=92s time to send Congress a wake-up call!
