An atomic bomb like story dropped April 27, when Channel 13 Eyewitness News, an NBC affiliate in Indiana opened with “Millions of illegal immigrants are getting a bigger tax refund than you. Eyewitness News shows a massive tax loophole that provides billions of dollars in tax credits to undocumented workers and, in many cases, people who have never stepped foot in the United States. And you are paying for it!” Bob Segall, narrator of the news segment 13 Investigates, begins with the disclosure of a longtime tax consultant, who produced thousands of tax returns easily documenting his claims, from illegal immigrants.

Everyone employed in the U.S. is required to pay taxes. Because illegal immigrants do not possess a social security number the IRS gives them an individual taxpayer identification number, or ITIN. The tax loophole deals with the Additional Child Tax Credit “meant to help U.S. working families who have children living at home” by giving them a credit of up to $1000 per child. The problem is that illegal immigrants have learned that they too can claim this and are doing so for kids in Mexico who have never lived here—lots of them. The whistle blower showed the television station refunds of $10,300 for nieces and nephews of one filer, yet another $11,000 for his nieces and nephews. “I can bring out stacks and stacks,” the tax consultant said.

Eyewitness News selected one of the cases and found multiple adult illegals even using the same filing address. “One of the workers, who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana, admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who don’t even live there. Those four workers claimed 20 children live inside the one residence and, as a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling $29,608.” The reporters found only one child actually living in the mobile home. When they asked were the others were they were told that they live in Mexico. In fact, they had never lived here. An interview of other illegals revealed that both, filing under false address and listing children who had never been in the U.S., was not uncommon.

The reporters next interviewed Russell George, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration and learned that “the IRS has known about the problem for years,” that he himself has repeatedly warned them and still they have done nothing about it. Last year the Inspector General “released a new report showing the problem now costs American tax-payers more than $4.2 billion.” He added, “Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we believe, are not entitled to it.” How big is the problem? The Inspector General continued, “undocumented workers filed 3.02 million tax returns in 2010. Seventy-two percent of those returns (2.18 million) claimed the additional child tax credit.” And then he added another bombshell. “In 2010, the IRS owed undocumented workers more in claimed additional child tax credits than it collected from those workers in taxes.” You might want to read that last sentence again.

The reporters were rebuffed at every attempt to interview the IRS. “Despite repeated phone calls, e-mails and a visit to IRS headquarters in Washington, the agency said none of its 100,000 employees had time to meet.” Finally, in an email the IRS did admit that this practice was known to them for over a decade but that they were only following the law “as it is written.”

This explanation did not satisfy the tax consultant either, who said that he repeatedly informed the IRS of other discretions practiced as well, such as the filing of “phony documents and false income to claim tax credits.” They did not care about that either. “These were fraudulent, 100% fraudulent tax returns, but I got no response; absolutely none. We never heard a thing.”

Obviously the IRS does not care and is an accomplice in fraud to the tune of $4.2 billion a year. The next question is does Congress care enough to investigate, and reign in its unruly 1913 creation, or is it corrupt as well? Why not ask your congressman if he will take the lead in this investigation.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Time magazine’s April 23, 2012, edition featured a cover story called “The World’s Most Exclusive Club: The Secret Society of Presidents” by authors Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy. The cover shows a shot of President Barack Obama walking with his hands affectionately on the backs of former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Inside is a photograph of the most recent five presidents from Jimmy Carter to the present, all laughing and enjoying each other’s company as if they had always been fast friends.

The piece was mostly a series of “profiles in cooperation” as incident after incident was cited from Herbert Hoover to the present (excepting Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan about whom nothing was disclosed) on how past presidents had been able to forget their differences and assist new presidents because they alone knew what the current presidents were going through. It was as though there had never been any differences once they left office. The sincerity of their coming together appeared genuine.

The article refers to it as “the President’s Club” complete with a clubhouse, exclusively for only past presidents, conveniently located at 716 Jackson Place, just across the street from the White House on Lafayette Square. Richard Nixon converted the century old house into a clubhouse “mainly to keep LBJ [President Lyndon Baines Johnson] happy when he was in town,” the authors noted. “For reservations, you need to call the White House, and only four men are eligible to check in.” This way the current president always knows when his counterparts are in town and can arrange consultation if wanted. All costs for maintenance, housing, food and etc. are picked up by the taxpayer.

This long-standing comradery may surprise readers but this is not the only “most exclusive club” that each participates in. All presidents from Herbert Hoover on have either been members of, or had a close relationship with, the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. When a president is not a member himself, his vice president is. Virtually all of our secretaries of state, United Nations ambassadors, and ambassadors to Russia and China have been members of this Wall Street special interest group since the Hoover administration in the late 1920’s. Moreover, CFR members largely fill all presidential cabinets.

This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between democrats and republican presidents. They get their advisors from the same Wall Street special interest group. They all support extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 900 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. Likewise, they all support bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers own private Federal Reserve Bank.

Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, probably admitted more than she was supposed to in her address at the recent dedication of a branch CFR in Washington D. C. when she said that her source of direction was the CFR sub-center down the street. “I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Notable political scientist Lester Milbraith observed in his work Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, p. 247, that “the influence of the CFR throughout government is so pervasive that it is difficult to distinguish the CFR from government programs.” Prominent political scientist Thomas R. Dye in his textbook Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration, p. 188, wrote “The history of CFR policy accomplishments is dazzling” then traced in detail their dominating role in foreign policy accomplishment from the 1920’s through the George Bush Administration from their own boasts of success in Council on Foreign Relations Annual Reports.

What is wrong with this “secret society?” In 1954, The Reece Congressional Committee noted that its productions, “are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalism concept.” How powerful was it by the time Congress first discovered its influence? It had come, they wrote, “to be in essence an agency of the United States government, no doubt carrying its internationalist bias with it” (Pp. 176-177).

Politics appears to be divided between two warring ideologies but because of these two secret societies of comradery, one providing a type of brotherhood, the other the same-shared source of direction and pool of advisors, it is hard to believe that at the top we are really divided at all. Presidents have far more commonality and bipartisanship than has been portrayed.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Several years ago, at a public debate for county supervisor in a California community, the public was invited to offer questions in writing. I did so and watched the monitor of the debate, with a puzzled look on his face, sideline my question in preference to others. I presumed it was because it had something to do with the Constitution, which, unfortunately, is considered by many an irrelevant topic at the city, county, or even state level. You are supposed to ask what “goodies” from taxpayer funding can you give to me and, is it more than your opponent. The other evening, at a similar debate, I experienced a more receptive response; at least my question was asked.

So what does the Constitution have to do with local or state issues a friend later asked? Everything!! First, it is the only document that every single elected public servant swore to uphold. So the Founders must have thought it relevant at every level.

Second, candidates at lower levels successfully rise to higher levels because of the name recognition obtained at lower levels and eventually become members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, often without ever having read the Constitution they are specifically under oath to protect. When I worked as a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate some years ago, I was certain at least 50% had never read it. Today I would be surprised if those who had read it exceeded 10%. But no one asks candidates, even while campaigning at the highest levels, when they last read it.

So tell me again why it matters? Historically, the two enemies of freedom have been, and always will be, 1) it is the nature of all governments to pull decision making power upward to the seat of government and 2) the more apathetic and indifferent the population becomes, the greater the tendency of the people to push decision making power upwards to the seat of government. When these two forces work together, it always leads to the central government eventually having all the power. The Constitution is full of “handcuffs” to keep decision-making power from getting to the top thus maximizing it with the individual. The Founders overriding philosophy of government, if it could be penned into one sentence, was, “never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level.”

Even a casual look at the Constitution reveals the separation of powers on the federal level into three distinct branches the legislative, executive, and judicial—each with a specific list: for Congress it was a list of the four types of law they could make (Art. I, Sec. 8), for the president it was the types of executive functions he could execute (Art. II, Sec. 2-3), and for the Supreme Court the types of cases it could adjudicate (Art. III, Sec. 2). The lists exist so that they do not have all power in each area. The only type of federal government authorized by the Founders was decidedly a limited one. What is not emphasized, and should be, from the state, county and city perspective is that all other powers not specified belong to the states and the people as per Amendment 10.

When these limitations are not understood, the federal government is constantly tempted to steal authority from the states or counties as per its confiscating environmental, health, and education issues, which are 100%, state issues. States should use the Tenth Amendment to tell the federal government to “butt out.” “You have no Constitutional authority.” When Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act, December 31, both states and counties should have written Congress. “You do not have the right to void Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8, of The Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus for our citizens. The military shall not arrest any of our citizens.” When President Barack Obama issued an executive order March 16 authorizing himself to declare “martial law” without any authorization from any other government, states and counties should in unison have said “not in our areas of jurisdiction without our say so! Sir! The Constitution gives you no such authority.”

City, county, and state leaders, you are our buffer from the federal government taking from you your areas of jurisdiction. They have done so for many years because you were complacent in it, or, ignorant of the Constitution. You have placed us in the position that your understanding of the document must be known before we place you in power. Our only hope now is to find leaders with Constitutional fire in their bellies to undo the precedents that you have created. All issues on the city and county level are directly or indirectly Constitutional issues. We expect you to know, and abide by, the document that you swore to uphold.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Most know that the Dream Act came to us in two phases, the first many years ago, and the second initiated into law just last January. The initial process was to allow illegals to enter U. S. colleges, after high school graduation, even if they had only been in the country a few months, without paying fees required of foreign students or even out of state students. The argument made by out of state students was that illegals had more assistance than they. The argument made by foreign students, who seek to be educated in the United States, is why does one country get free assistance and not another. It is certainly a double standard.

A powerful argument against equal funding of everyone is that it is not equal. The huge education expenses necessary are subsidized by the long-term taxpayer and should benefit his children first. This is why we have extra fees for out of state or foreign students—to make the process fair to our own. New immigrants, whether legal or not, could not contribute enough on a short-term basis to make this fair. Certainly Mexico would not even try to subsidize Americans sneaking into their country.

The second phase of the Dream Act became law in California January I, 2012. It authorized illegals to compete for state grants, fee waivers and university scholarships—about 40 million dollars in public funds—with those of legal residents.

Meet Jennifer (name changed as she fears repercussion from our government for her views), a Canadian student in the college where I work. She shared her story of the multi-levels of hoops that she has had to endure to go to college in the U. S. and still without any subsidized assistance as is readily available to illegals. “Before my mother and I could move here from Canada my mother had to have a secure job awaiting her, along with a visa sponsored by that job. She also had to take several exams and become licensed as a nurse here in California.” She was already a nurse in Canada. This process took about a year. Visas had to be renewed annually at a cost of $50.00 each. After five years of visa renewal we “were eligible to apply for permanent residency at a cost of about $10,000.”

She continued, “During this process you have to go through a lot of paper work and appointments at the local immigration office. We had all of our fingerprints taken, background checks, along with all of our immunizations that we have had throughout our lifetime. We were also tested for various diseases such as TB, HIV, etc. and even had to take a urine test. After all of that was cleared, after a waiting period, we received our social security card and a work authorization card. My mother was already allowed to work in the U. S. with her visa, but since I was her dependent, I was not. So I was not able to work, or obtain my drivers license until I had my social and work authorization documentation.”

After four years of this they still await their green card approval and were told, “it could take up to five more years, if not longer, due to the back log. I was told that only now are they reviewing applications for permanent residency from 2005. So who knows, maybe in a few years we will have our approval. After this, we can apply for citizenship which, in itself, will be another long process.”

She spoke of her difficulty getting into college, even as a 2006 California high school graduate, because she was a legal immigrant. She was told that she could not attend college without a green card (which she could not provide because she was in the application process) or a student visa (which one does not have to renew annually once you apply for the green card)—bureaucratic run-around at its best. Finally, after four years of failed attempts to get into college, she learned of AB 540 which enabled her to attend by paying out of state tuition, although, “I still do not qualify for any assistance such as fasfa, etc. [Federal Student Aid] due to the fact that I am awaiting my green card.” Even so, although otherwise qualified, she still cannot get into the universities nursing program without the green card. “There are no exceptions.”

Contrast her story with those who sneak across our southern border illegally, run from law enforcement, and easily find work in the U.S., without all the testing and preconditions, because employers and government look the other way and reward their children with incentives and now scholarships not available to those who are honest and open in their entry. Her response, “The Dream Act upsets me greatly, I could have been finished with school.”

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

In light of the President’s recent concern, as expressed in the Wall Street Journal, that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” (“Obama Warns Court” by Laura Meckler and Carol E. Lee.”), let me remind him that the measure barely squeaked by with a majority of seven votes in the democratically controlled House of Representatives (219-212) and in the Senate with a minimum number to avoid a filibuster—hardly a “strong majority.” Nor would such a decision by the Court be “unprecedented” or “extraordinary,” but these arguments need explanation another day.

My concern is with the article’s conclusion: “In his first public comments about the case since the justices first took it up last week, Mr. Obama appeared to be framing the political argument he would make should he have to face voters this fall after a loss at the high court.” If right, that the President’s strategy is to pit the majority against the minority of the population, to further democratize our system of government, then it must be stopped in its tracks. We are a republic, not a democracy!!

Allowing “a mere nine old people” to strike down what a majority want is certainly undemocratic and it does smack of unfairness. Majority rule is the heart of democracy. Nothing is fair in our government and nothing can be made to be fair without the total destruction of our form of government, a republic. Surely, President Barack Obama knows this, but the people are made to believe we are a democracy by the constant long-term use of that word by those holding high office and the media. An artful politician playing the “fairness card” can prey on the ignorance of the people to gain or retain public office. If enough come to believe that we should be a democracy, instead of a republic, they, unfortunately, can “fundamentally change America.” Is this what we have to look forward to in the debates this Fall should the Supreme Court rule against “Obamacare?”

How undemocratic are we? The Senate, initially chosen by the state legislatures—not the people—was created to serve the interests of the states, which is why we have two legislative branches rather than one—two perspectives, the House represented the people and the Senate the states. The president is elected by the Electoral College rather than by popular vote. Supreme Court members are chosen for life by the Electoral College “selected” president and confirmed only by the “state selected” Senate. Our entire system is undemocratic by design. The House alone is democracy.

Why are we so undemocratic? It is because we are not all equal in experience, wisdom, common sense, understanding of natural law, and knowledge as to how we maintain freedom from government. I ask my students how many months did they spend analyzing the propositions in the last election before they voted? Weeks? Days? Hours? Minutes? None? If only hours or minutes, why should their vote cancel one who took the privilege far more seriously? Why is the democratic notion of “one man one vote” not decidedly unfair to those who spend serious time contemplating the issues.

In a democracy the ignorant rule because they have the same power as the informed and there are more of them. Thomas Jefferson saw the harm in such when he wrote: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous French philosopher traveling America in the 1840s, foresaw the end of our liberty experiment when he wrote: “The American Republic will endure until the Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publics money.” That day is today! Both were aware of the demand for “bread and circus” made by those under democracy in Rome that ended freedom.

How did the Founders, who clearly understood the problems of democracy with respect to its failure to endure in both Greece and Rome, protect us from democracy? The answer was a republic that preserved the caring elements of democracy by instilling frequent elections with options in the House of Representatives. All war, taxes and impeachment powers originate with the House. If the House is upset much change can occur in just two years. The Senate and Presidency were less democratic with the Supreme Court the most undemocratic end of our government—totally immune from the erratic whims of the emotion of the masses.

Time-tested principles embedded in the Constitution had to be preserved. Difficult to understand concepts such as separation of powers, federalism, limited government, and all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights had to be protected from the majority because the majority can vote them away. The Founders knew that liberty could be destroyed by democracy, as had happened in the two republics before our own, and gave us our justices to protect us from democracy. So, Mr. President let them.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered the last fifty years. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). A law’s review by 536 individuals (435 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived the rigid scrutiny of both branches and bore the signature of the President.

In light of the President’s recent Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness, signed March 16, 2012, which should be the focus of considerable media attention, we need to examine the constitutionality of the executive order process that increasingly allows the executive branch to replace Congress as the principal law-making branch. But first a reminder of what this Executive Order does.

By a mere stroke of the pen President Barack Obama renewed and expanded the Bill Clinton, June 3,1994, National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness, Executive Order 12919, that authorized the executive department’s take-over, in case of a national emergency, of all civil transportation including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). National emergency was never adequately defined therefore, presumably, left to the discretion of the President alone as to when such conditions warranted his implementation or removal of the emergency.

Section 102 of the Obama decree broadened the Clinton E.O. to apply “in peacetime and in national emergency” which means that parts of the edict are in effect with his signature alone without any emergency identified. We no longer need to wait for an emergency. Moreover, according to Section 103(b), compliance can be forced upon all needed “subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel.” Imagine private contractors being required to serve against their will. Conspicuously omitted was any role for Congress in this “martial law type” edict.

Today, though the E.O. process, the President makes half as many laws (decrees if you prefer) as does the Legislative Branch—about three a week. Some few laws of Congress need a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. This he did by Executive Order, which was constitutional. An executive order, if it simply implements a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is fine. But, when he instead takes multiple pieces of many laws passed by ancient congresses, he effectively creates new law without any review and unconstitutionally usurps the powers of Congress. This has happened through much of the 20th Century.

Even more blatantly unconstitutional is the practice of presidents, beginning with Richard Nixon, of not even attempting to justify their Executive Orders with ancient pieces of authorization, instead, just decreeing something to be law. These are known as presidential decrees and differ little from monarchical, or dictatorial decrees.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order opens, as all do, with a statement of authority that one must scrutinize to determine if the President is making new law or carrying out a specific, recent, congressional request. “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S. C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3. United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:” is designed to sound official. If the reader cannot specifically go to the source of authority and read it, then the general statement is but window dressing. Phrases “as President by the Constitution” or, “as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces” establish no specific authority. The Constitution gives no authority for such an edict. One, recently cited, law by Congress specifically requesting the President to do something is definitely needed to make this executive order valid and the best the President was able to do was go back sixty-two years and make up stuff to go with the 1950 law as Bill Clinton did in 1994.

Except for the few executive orders which require a statement of implementation by the president, all other types of executive orders are unconstitutional and must stop. If they do not, the inevitable will happen—Congress will nullify itself and dictatorial decrees will be the standard.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Constitution, Executive Order 12919, Executive Orders not always constitutional, Executive Orders should not make law, Legislative brance alone to make law, Martial Law Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness

The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered the last fifty years. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). A law’s review by 536 individuals (435 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived the rigid scrutiny of both branches and bore the signature of the President.

In light of the President’s recent Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness, signed March 16, 2012, which should be the focus of considerable media attention, we need to examine the constitutionality of the executive order process that increasingly allows the executive branch to replace Congress as the principal law-making branch. But first a reminder of what this Executive Order does.

By a mere stroke of the pen President Barack Obama renewed and expanded the Bill Clinton, June 3,1994, National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness, Executive Order 12919, that authorized the executive department’s take-over, in case of a national emergency, of all civil transportation including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). National emergency was never adequately defined therefore, presumably, left to the discretion of the President alone as to when such conditions warranted his implementation or removal of the emergency.

Section 102 of the Obama decree broadened the Clinton E.O. to apply “in peacetime and in national emergency” which means that parts of the edict are in effect with his signature alone without any emergency identified. We no longer need to wait for an emergency. Moreover, according to Section 103(b), compliance can be forced upon all needed “subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel.” Imagine private contractors being required to serve against their will. Conspicuously omitted was any role for Congress in this “martial law type” edict.

Today, though the E.O. process, the President makes half as many laws (decrees if you prefer) as does the Legislative Branch—about three a week. Some few laws of Congress need a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. This he did by Executive Order, which was constitutional. An executive order, if it simply implements a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is fine. But, when he instead takes multiple pieces of many laws passed by ancient congresses, he effectively creates new law without any review and unconstitutionally usurps the powers of Congress. This has happened through much of the 20th Century.

Even more blatantly unconstitutional is the practice of presidents, beginning with Richard Nixon, of not even attempting to justify their Executive Orders with ancient pieces of authorization, instead, just decreeing something to be law. These are known as presidential decrees and differ little from monarchical, or dictatorial decrees.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order opens, as all do, with a statement of authority that one must scrutinize to determine if the President is making new law or carrying out a specific, recent, congressional request. “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S. C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3. United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:” is designed to sound official. If the reader cannot specifically go to the source of authority and read it, then the general statement is but window dressing. Phrases “as President by the Constitution” or, “as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces” establish no specific authority. The Constitution gives no authority for such an edict. One, recently cited, law by Congress specifically requesting the President to do something is definitely needed to make this executive order valid and the best the President was able to do was go back sixty-two years and make up stuff to go with the 1950 law as Bill Clinton did in 1994.

Except for the few executive orders which require a statement of implementation by the president, all other types of executive orders are unconstitutional and must stop. If they do not, the inevitable will happen—Congress will nullify itself and dictatorial decrees will be the standard.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

The most dangerous executive order (hereafter EO) ever written (exempting Franklin Roosevelt’s EO throwing Japanese-Americans into relocation camps against their will in World War II) was EO 12919 of June 3, 1994. By a mere stroke of the pen President Bill Clinton authorized the executive department’s take-over, in case of a national emergency, of all civil transportation including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.”

National emergency was never adequately defined therefore, presumably, left to the discretion of the President alone as to when such conditions warranted his implementation of it. Nor were circumstances noted when such would end allowing the return of confiscated property and the free movement of the people again. Nor was there any noted role for Congress. Nor was there any role noted for local civil authority—the first responders. Nor was it explained why the president needed near dictatorial power in a national emergency and had not in crisis heretofore. There was no debate.

Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). The detail was incredible. Every possibility considered. Some concern and fear was expressed at the time about this “martial law type” edict but since the president did not act on it, nor did it seem reasonable that he or any future president would, twas soon forgotten. Imagine all this power in the hands of one person. It sounded more likely to be enacted in a communist or fascist country.

On March 16 of this year the infamous Clinton Executive Order was revoked by President Barack Obama and replaced by the equally threatening and expanded National Defense Resources Preparedness. The new EO retains all of the dreaded portions of the 1994 Clinton one, as noted above, but Section 102 of the Obama decree broadens it to apply “in peacetime and in national emergency.” Moreover, according to Section 103(b), compliance can be forced upon all needed “subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel.” Imagine private contractors being required to serve against their will. In wartime such a requirement would normally be given voluntarily, but in peacetime?

Where is our elected Congress specifically charged with making all federal rules with respect to a free people as stipulated in Article I, Section I of the Constitution? The EO essentially replaces them on national defense—their most important responsibility. The EO reads in part, “The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policy making forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President.” An “integrated policy making forum?” Isn’t that what Congress is supposed to be?

To administrate the new self-empowering edict that, as a result of Obama’s Executive Order has peacetime application as well, the EO creates the National Defense Executive Reserve. The President’s NDER is to be “composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government … for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.” A huge new bureaucracy supported by the taxpayer without one ounce of congressional authority—even debate—is created by the stroke of the pen of just one man. The Secretary of Homeland Security is also “to determine periods of national defense emergency.” This implies continued national emergencies that justify continued “martial law like” monitoring of the people in the name of national emergency.

The most dangerous Executive Order in our history, unless you were Japanese-American in World War II, is alive and well and even more threatening under President Obama. If Congress continues its trend of ignoring her sole rule-making jurisdiction, it may soon make itself irrelevant. Unfortunately, it also makes the people and their constitution irrelevant as well. Perhaps your Congressman does not yet know about this liberty threatening Executive Order semi-secretly signed in the Oval Office of the White House. Will you tell him so that he can step up to the plate and defend you?

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org