Lazarus Long....
>>Look up "The XYZ Affair" on the web.
You may argue that a declaration of war is required to use military force (although I defy you to show me the text in the Constitution that says that), but the fact is that less than 10 years after the Constitution was written, the very men who wrote it were using military force against France without a declaration of war.>>
I'd hazard to say that 90% of what passes as our "Federal Government" has originated unconstitutionally outside the limited powers proscribed by the Constitution for the united states of America.
Notice I didn't say "by the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" which was incorporated in the Act of 1871 on February 21, 1871.
The original "state of our union" was a Republic - ie. union of several sovereign states that humbly served We The People who, as individuals, were/are sovereign - granted through our trust and consent to create the states and confer strictly limited powers at the state and federal level to protect our rights, property and our pursuit of happiness. A sovereign individuals - such as George Washington, many of our Founding Fathers and colonists proclaimed and believed they were - we are equal to 1200 Queens and Kings - if not more. The birth of popular sovereignty was here in this country. Believing and proclaiming this notion of the individual being sovereign - that our rights were divine and came from an almight God and not man - WAS what the revolution was all about.
A soverign individual is not subject to ANY jurisdiction at ANY level - local, state and federal. As long as the individual is obeying the Common Law of our almighty creator - ie. do unto others as you would have them do unto you - not ONE (1) law, rule or regulation applies to the sovereign individual. But any individual representative, employee or member of the local, state of federal army/militia IS always bound by their oath of office to obey and defend the Constition - at the local, state and federal level - from enemies foreign and domestic or else be charged with criminal treason and tried accordingly.
This means they are ALL strictly bounded under the Common Law as proscribed and enumerated by the Constitution. And if there is any law, statutes, rule or regulation that does not obey and honor the spirit and letter of the constitution and common law of our almighty God then it is completely null and void.
If there was still a separation of powers in our country we wouldn't have the agency sham that has co-opted, controlled and collapsed the lesgislative, administrative and judicial functions into various agencies that have been operating much like corporations operate using "resolutions" to operate completely outside the Constitution to advance the various special interest causes that have been promoting the advancement of the social welfare state that operates a warmaking military dictatorship that's been masquarading as as free country.
Individuals have been educated to believe that their rights are essentially "civil" in nature and that, as priviledges, they come from government and are protected by government. This was the great scam of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Era. We really didn't free the slaves. We simply made them subjects of the New Federal Plantation by granting them citizenship status and equal protection under the 14th Amendment that was never really ratified to begin with. And once that happened, the same conditionally priviledged version of citizenship - ie. individuals as subjects getting priviledges from the government - extended to the rest of Americans who were already free, sovereign Americal citizens by virtue of simply been born between our ocean shores. This same free sovereign American citizenship should have applied to blacks and whites with zerp/no need for the claim of federal intervention.
As for your question concerning "the law" as it relates to waging wars, there was a very good reason why it was necessary for Congress to declare war BEFORE the united states of America could prosecute a war: TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT!!
Period.
Here are the EXACT words from Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power....."
........."To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
There is it Lazarus!! That IS THE LAW OF THE LAND!!
Period.
Anything Congressional act, rule, law, statute or resolution that operates outside the powers that are strickly limited and proscribed by the Constitution are illegal, null and void.
Period.
As for "The XYZ Affair"...
gi.grolier.com
>>XYZ AFFAIR
The XYZ Affair of 1798 led to an undeclared naval war between France and the United States. The incident had its beginnings during the administration of George WASHINGTON, who angered the French by concluding Jay's Treaty (1794) with Britain and seeking (1796) to replace the American minister in Paris, James MONROE, who had been friendly to the principles of the French Revolution. Washington's successor, John ADAMS, cautiously sent three commissioners to France to modify the Franco-American alliance of 1778, which was still in force; that alliance was an embarrassment to the U.S. government during the wars that broke out between Britain and France in the wake of the French Revolution. France's military victories emboldened the Paris government to ask for bribes and a loan from the United States before negotiations could begin. Supposedly unofficial requests were made by a Swiss banker named Hottenguer (Mr. "X," as President Adams called him in messages to Congress), by a merchant from Hamburg named Bellamy ("Y"), and by a Mr. Hauteval ("Z"). Charles C. Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry, the American commissioners, refused to pay the bribes. A public outcry arose in the United States over the request and the so-called Quasi War of 1798-1800 between the United States and France ensued.
Robert H. Ferrell>>
This sounds very similar to what we are facing today. But this doesn't mean the XYZ Affair was legal any more than the
You might want to review the following - see below..
Peace and God Bless,
119293!!
givemeliberty.org
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN
HOSTILITIES IN IRAQ WITHOUT A CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF WAR
WHEREAS, during September, 2002, the President of the United States of America submitted a draft Resolution to the United States Congress that would authorize the President to apply the armed forces of the United States of America in hostilities in Iraq without a congressional Declaration of War, and
WHEREAS, All men are created equal and are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable rights, and
WHEREAS, If the Creator has, in fact, gratuitously provided, equipped and enriched the People of the United States of America with Rights, it follows that those Rights belong to the People and to the Creator and it follows that any affront to the Constitution (as when government attempts to violate an unalienable Right) is an affront to the Creator, and
WHEREAS, If our Rights come from the Creator, only the Creator can frustrate and deny or defeat our Rights -- that is, government cannot abridge what God has put in place, and
WHEREAS, The Constitution of the United States of America is a strongly worded, Divinely inspired set of principles expressly intended to govern the government, not the people, and
WHEREAS, By the terms and provisions of the Constitution, the People have established their government and authorized it to act in certain ways, and have purposely and markedly restricted and prohibited the government from acting in certain ways, and
WHEREAS, The People, through their Constitution, have prohibited the government from applying the armed forces of the United States of America in hostilities overseas without a Congressional declaration of war, and
WHEREAS, The People have granted to Congress alone the authority to declare war against a foreign nation, and
WHEREAS, The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over its war declaration power to the President, and
WHEREAS, The Constitution guarantees every American citizen the unalienable right to life, liberty, and property, and
WHEREAS, Each of the Constitution’s prohibitions and restrictions on government’s power is, in fact, another unalienable right enjoyed by every citizen and resident on American soil, and
WHEREAS, Each individual on American soil has an unalienable right to freedom from a government that would apply the armed forces of the United States of America in hostilities overseas without a Congressional declaration of war, now therefore
WE THE PEOPLE, hereby petition the federal government for a redress of grievances relating to the application of the armed forces of the United States of America in Iraq without a congressional declaration of war, and
WE THE PEOPLE, respectfully request that the President of the United States of America, each member of Congress’ House of Representatives and each member of Congress’ Senate honor their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, by honoring their obligation to respond to this, the People’s petition for redress of grievance, by answering the following questions, and
WE THE PEOPLE, at noon on Thursday, November 14, 2002, will peaceably assemble at the Washington monument in Washington, DC, where we will await the President, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, and other members of Congress, or their representatives, to receive an answer to these questions or to learn when these elected representatives of the People will provide an answer to our questions.
1. Do you admit that the War Powers Clauses of the United States Constitution provides Congress with the power to "define and punish…offenses against the Law of Nations" (U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, § 8, cl.10), and the power to "declare War . . . ." (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 11), and the power to "make rules for the government and regulation of the [armed forces of the United States]" (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 14), and the power to "provide for the calling forth of the [National Guard and National Guard Reserve]…." (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 15), and the power to "provide for…governing such part of the [National Guard and National Guard Reserve]…." (U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 16)?
2. Do you admit that Congress’ power to declare war works in conjunction with the authority granted to the President under the Constitution to act as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 1)?
3. Do you admit the Framers intended to give each of the two branches a role in the conduct of foreign military affairs, that is, that Congress would declare war and raise and financially maintain armies, while the President would conduct wars?
4. Do you admit that in 1973, over President Richard Nixon’s veto, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, (50 U.S.C. § 1541, et. seq.), in order to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations?"[See 50 U.S.C. § 1541(a)]
5. Do you admit that the purpose of the resolution was to ensure that the "constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?" [See 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c)]
6. Do you admit that War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. §1541 et.seq., delegates to some future President, under any unknown circumstances, the power to introduce the United States armed forces into hostilities (war) against a sovereign nation, even those which offer no threat to the United States, its allies, or to any other nation, for a period of sixty days or more, without a declaration of war by Congress and without specific statutory authorization?
7. Do you admit that the War Powers Resolution provides, inter alia, that "n the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a written report setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of forces, the constitutional and legislative authority to introduce the forces and the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement." 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a)? (our emphasis).
8. Do you admit that in violation of said War Powers clauses, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 delegates to some future President, under any unknown circumstances, and without a declaration of war by Congress, and without specific statutory authorization, the power to define and punish "offenses" by a sovereign nation, by introducing the United States armed forces into hostilities (war) against that sovereign nation, even though that sovereign nation may offer no threat to the United States, its allies or to any other nation?
9. Do you admit that 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b) requires that within sixty calendar days after the President either submits a report pursuant to Section 1543(a) or is required to have submitted a report, the President must terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces described in Section 1543 unless Congress (1) has declared war or has provided specific authorization for the use of such forces, (2) has extended by law the sixty-day time period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States?
10. Do you admit that 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b) authorizes the President to extend the sixty-day period an additional thirty days if he determines and certifies in writing to the Congress that the continued use of forces for the additional time is necessary to safely remove the United States Armed Forces?
11. Do you admit that 50 U.S.C. §§ 1545, 1546, 1546a (The War Powers Resolution) also sets forth a mechanism so that both houses of Congress are required to give priority consideration to any resolution or bill that would provide the President with the authorization described above?
12. Do you admit that the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §1541 et.seq., does not indicate what is to happen if the President ignores the sixty-day requirement, as President Clinton did with respect to his military campaign against Yugoslavia?
13. Do you admit that the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1547(a), explicitly provides that authority to introduce forces into hostilities shall not be inferred "from any provision of law . . . including any provision contained in any appropriations Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of [the War Powers Resolution]," or "from any treaty . . . unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of [the War Powers Resolution]"?
14. Do you admit that War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. §1541 et.seq., is violative of the War Powers Clauses: Article I, Section 8, clauses 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution?
15. Do you admit that during September, 2002, the President submitted a draft Resolution to Congress that would authorize the President to apply the armed forces of the United States of America in hostilities in Iraq and the region around Iraq?
16. Do you admit that the draft Resolution the President submitted to Congress in September, 2002, regarding the application of the armed forces of the United States against Iraq, would, if passed by Congress, represent an unconstitutional delegation by the Congress to the Executive of the War Powers reserved to Congress by Article 1, § 8, clauses 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution, and a significant and substantial violation of the most fundamental constitutional principle of "separation of power"?
17. Do you admit that any agreement, contract or treaty with the United Nations does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over its war declaration power to the President?
18. Do you admit that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution...let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI (The Supremacy Clause) as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V."? REID V. COVERT, 354 U.S. (1956)
19. Do you admit that the Congress does not stand beside the People or the Judiciary as a co-interpreter of the fundamental law, particularly when it comes to consideration of restraints on Congressional power?
20. Do you admit that that Congress and the Executive may not collude to evade any Clause of the Constitution?
21. Do you admit that the People cannot close their eyes to the Constitution and see only the acts of the President and the Congress?
22. Do you admit that said draft Resolution calls upon Congress to collude with the President in a collective decision to apply the armed forces of America against the sovereign nation of Iraq, unconstitutionally, and to deliberately chose, by their official actions, to allow for the collapse of fundamental republican principles and with it the rule of law?
23. Do you admit that said draft Resolution calls upon Congress to collude with the President in a collective decision to deny us and other citizens our unalienable right to freedom from a government that applies the armed forces of America in hostilities overseas without a declaration of war by Congress? |
