Submitted For Your Review!!
What is Martial-law?
AfroCentric News welcomes contributing view points to this post. Let us look closely at this issue. Your reponses will be posted.
AfroCentric News Response to Post
Understand the magnitude of Martial-law in its context.
This is lengthy, but I would ask that you take the time to read
and understand the information to follow. Please
consider these matters. They affect us TODAY:
Following the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson opposed passage of the
Reconstruction Act. He vetoed it, but his veto was overturned. In his
"Veto Message of the Reconstruction Act," he explained that martial law
was being declared by the provisions of the act and he, to his credit, was
opposed to it.
Unfortunately, Johnson lost that battle, and the Reconstruction Act
placed the nation under martial law rule for the first time in our history.
THAT MARTIAL LAW HAS NEVER BEEN REPEALED.
Folks who run around worrying about when martial law is going to be
declared to "take it all away" don't know what they're talking about.
We've been under technical and legal martial law for over a century.
Here are Johnson's comments which explain in some detail exactly what
the Reconstruction Act was designed to do--and DID do. They are extensive
quotes. TAKE THE TIME TO READ THEM, and then I'll show you how this set
the stage for Executive Orders and the complete subversion of what we
thought was the supreme law of the land:
"I have examined the Bill to provide for more efficient
government of the rebel states with the care and anxiety which its transcended importance
is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give my assent for reasons so
grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the minds of
the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must ultimately
rest.
==> "The Bill places all the people therein named under the absolute
domination of military rules, and the Preamble undertakes to give the
reason upon which the measure is based, and the ground upon which it is
justified. It declares that there exists in those states no legal
governments and no adequate protection for life, property, and assets;
and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their
limits.
==> "This is not true, as a matter of fact. The excuse given for
the Bill in the Preamble is admitted by the Bill itself not to be real. The
military rule, which it establishes, is plainly to be used not for any
purpose of order, or the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of
coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to
which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an
undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.
"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole
character, scope, and object, without precedent and without authority, in palpable
conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly
destructive to those great principles of liberty and humanity for which
our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and
expended so much treasure.
"The authority here amounts to absolute despotism. Such a power
has not been wielded by any monarch in England for more than 500 years. It
reduces the whole population, all persons of every color, sex, and condition,
and every stranger, to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master
ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this Bill gives.
"This Proposition is perfectly clear that no branch of the
federal government, executive, legislative, or judicial, can have any just
powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic
laws of the union. Outside of the Constitution, we have no legal authority
more than private citizens, and within it, we have only so much as that
instrument gives us.
"This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to
all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of the states which are
within the union, but shields every human being who comes or is brought under
our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one place more than in another
that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all.
"When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, he
may deal with them according to his pleasure because he had that power before.
But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he must still govern
according to law.
"This is a Bill by Congress in time of peace. There is not in
any one of the states either war or insurrection. The laws of the states and of
the federal governments are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation.
Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection--none of these
appear, and none of these, in fact, exist. It is not even recited that any sort
of war or insurrection is threatened.
==> "We see that martial law comes in only when actual war closes
the courts and deposes civil authority. But this Bill in time of peace
makes martial law operate as though we were in actual war, and becomes the
cause instead of the consequence of the abrogation of civil authority.
==> "This is sufficiently explicit: peace exists in all the
territory to which this Bill applies. It asserts a power in Congress in time of
peace to set aside laws of peace and to substitute the laws of war. The
purpose, an object of the Bill, the general intent which pervades it from
beginning to end, is to change the entire structure and character of the states'
governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws
and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves."
[end of quotes]
Now, despite President Johnson's Veto Message, the Reconstruction Act
was passed, and martial law fell upon the land. It remains in effect over
the citizens of the sovereign states today through the continued use of
Executive Orders, under the pretense of national emergencies -- in the
same way that the War Powers Act of 1933 was hustled through to
approval...national emergency.
FURTHER PROOF:
Further proof that martial law remained in effect after the Civil War
can be found in the "Congressional Globe" (now called the "Congressional
Record"). The following are excerpts from the April 20th through 29th,
1870 "Congressional Globe" concerning H.R. 1328 which established the
Department of Justice to CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT MARTIAL LAW nearly five
years after the end of the Civil War:
"The following bureaus shall be established in this department
[the Department of Justice]: a Bureau of International Law, a Bureau of
Revenue Law, a Bureau of Military and Naval Law, a Bureau of Postal Law, a
Bureau of Land Management Law."
Congressman Lawrence then said in the record:
"This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the
Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all
subjects of martial law, and the cognizance of all subjects of military and naval
law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which
relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the
supervision of records.
"If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law
officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this
Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General
of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to
martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of
military law which relates to military justice.
"In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving
legal opinions to the Secretary of War relating to the status of the states of
the union, their right to call upon the government for military
protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be
limited. The Judge Advocate General will perform duties administrative in their
character and almost exclusively so.
"But I will state to the House why, in my judgment, no transfer
of the Judge Advocate General or of his duties to the Department of Justice has
been proposed in this Bill. If this had been done, the Bill would have
encountered the opposition of some of the officers of the Bureau of
Military Justice and their friends, and so great is the power of men in
office, so difficult is it to abolish an office, that we were compelled
in the consideration of this subject to leave officers in this Bureau
untouched in their official tenure in order that this Bill might get
through Congress.
"But so far as the Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General is
concerned, he is transferred with all his supervisory power over naval
court martials and the records and proceedings of such courts, so that
to that extent, this Bill accomplishes the great purpose which it has in
view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the
government. It is misfortunate that there should be different constructions of the
laws of the United States by different law officers of the United States."
WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT:
These traitors knew they would have encountered opposition from the
military with the provisions of H.R. 1328, so they decided to leave the
military officers untouched during their tenure, and transfer them to
supervisory positions over court martials. This appeased the military
leaders, who didn't have the foggiest idea as to what was really going
on.
Had the traitors fleeced the military of all their powers during their
tenure in office, the military would have realized and possibly taken
some military action. But as nothing was happening at the hen house, they
slept through this entire situation which resulted in an overthrow of the
Constitution -- an overthrow under which government pretended to operate
in 1933, and under which it continues to pretend to operate today.
The traitors were now faced with a very serious problem, namely, what to
do with the powers of the Office of the Judge Advocate General when their
tenure in office expired. And they solved this dilemma by adding the
following amendments, detailed in that same "Congressional Globe":
Congressman Jenks: I move to amend Section 3 by inserting the
word "naval" before the words "Judge Advocate General".
The amendment was agreed to and later Congressman Finkelburg stated:
I would suggest the propriety of amending the third section of
this Bill by inserting after the words "the Naval Solicitor and Naval Judge
Advocate General" the words "who shall hereafter be known as Naval Solicitor".
Mr. Jenks: I have no objection to that amendment.
This amendment was also agreed to, and the Office of the Judge Advocate
General became known as the Naval Solicitor. Thus, when the existing
tenure was over, the new office would have a different set of rules and
regulations so that the Bill accomplished the great purpose which it had
in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the
government without the power of the Office of the Judge Advocate General
getting in their way.
==> This was a necessary step to bring the President into the position
of dictator over America.
But they had one other problem facing them, namely, DIRECT ACCESS to the
Treasury for the Department of Justice without interference. They
accomplished this by the following three sections of the Bill:
"...The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is
hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the
government....
"...The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter
drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed
by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he
may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making
appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out
of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed
by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby
repealed....
"...The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers
now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the
district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts
of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General...."
It is important here to remember that under the Trading with the Enemy
Act, the District Courts of the United States are:
"...hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules
as to notice and otherwise and all such orders and decrees and to issue such
process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the
provisions of this Act."
It is here that we find out that the district attorneys, marshals,
clerks and other officers of the courts are under the Department of Justice.
That seems an obvious statement, given the state of the nation today.
But the REAL PROBLEM -- given the broad scope of powers granted the
District Courts under the Trading with the Enemy Act -- is that the
Department of Justice is *NOT* a part of the Judicial Branch of
Government!
According to Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the
Department of State, the Department of Treasury, the Department of
Defense, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the Department of the Interior, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department
of Education, and the Department of the Veteran Affairs are *ALL* under the
Executive Branch of Government.
All of the above departments are under the Executive Branch--which
raises quite a few questions about the balance of powers between the Executive,
Judicial, and Legislative branches of government.
How can this be? There is no balance of power under a declared state of
emergency. And we've been living under a declared state of emergency
ever since the Civil War began, and have been living under a declared state
of martial law ever since the Reconstruction Act.
This overthrow of the Constitution occurred long before the War Powers
Act, and if we are going back in history to find our roots of legality -- and
if we stop our search when we reach the War Powers Act -- we are NOT going
to succeed in this venture.
Where is the separation of powers if the Department of Justice is under
the Executive branch? Shouldn't it be part of the Judiciary? The answer,
of course, is yes; but it's not. Again, just check Section 101 of Title 5
of the United States Code.
If only Congress has the power to regulate Commerce, under Article 1,
Section 8, of the Constitution, why are the Department of Commerce and
the Department of Transportation under the Executive branch and not under
the Legislative branch?
And if only the Congress has the power to coin money, according to the
Constitution, why is the Department of Treasury under the Executive
branch?
The Commerce Department (from Title 5):
"...part of the Executive branch of federal government, headed
by a Cabinet member, the Secretary of Commerce, which is concerned with
promoting domestic and international business and commerce."
To further illustrate the take-over by the Executive branch of
government via martial law, the following offices, bureaus, divisions, and
organizations are under the Department of Justice. And remember, the
Department of Justice is under the Executive branch -- NOT under the
judicial branch.
The Office of Solicitor General
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Drug Enforcement Agency
The Bureau of Prisons
Immigration and Naturalization
United States Marshal Service
Office of Justice Program
United States Parole Commission
United States National Central Bureau
The Office of the Pardon Attorney
Executive Office of the United States Attorney
Criminal Division
Civil Division
Anti-Trust Division
Civil Rights Division
Tax Division
Environmental and Natural Resource Division
Community Relations Services
Foreign Claim Settlement Division
Executive Office of United States Trustees
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Justice Management Division
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of Policy Development
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Liaison Services
Office of Intelligence and Policy Review
Office of International Affairs
Office of the Inspector General
Office of Professional Responsibility; and
Interpol -- (Note: Interpol is a private corporation, yet it comes under (in this country) the Executive branch of government.)
In my opinion: if the matter of the repeal of the Reconstruction Act
and the old H.R. 1328 are not addressed, we will remain in a state of
declared martial law.
But few people do any research anymore, and even fewer read the results
of research done by others. It's easier to fear-monger and speculate.
Yes, we are already, and have been all our lives, living under declared
martial law. So don't fear the declaration of it.
Know that it already exists, and do your preparations calmly and with
deliberation and planning. It will NOT take a national emergency to
declare martial law, but if people get into a panicky state, the implementation
of it could easily, at any time and in any place, become a reality at the drop
of a hat.
Don't fear. Just use common sense and prepare quietly, peacefully,
prayerfully.
"Say ye not, A confederacy [conspiracy], to all them to whom this people
shall say, A confederacy [conspiracy]; neither fear ye their fear, nor
be afraid." Isaiah 8:12
Have a great day and God bless!
Michele
-
"No problem facing us is more pressing, especially
since, unlike other Washington problems, neither the
President nor Congress can push the deadline back."
- John Koskinen, Chairman, President's Council on Y2K
