Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm


Post by notmartha »

Those who believe there is a system of checks and balances in the “U.S. government” don’t understand War and Emergency Powers (keep in mind that Congress sees “war” and “emergency” as virtually the same). Every president since FDR and some before him have declared some kind of “emergency” or “war,” i.e. economic, health, environmental, terrorist, etc. in order for legislative powers to be vested in the executive, usually in the form of executive orders that circumvent due process in order to oppress.

By definition, an “emergency” must be sudden, unexpected, and unplanned, and not caused by negligence by the one invoking the powers that an “emergency” would otherwise entitle one to act. In other words, I can’t negligently drive my car with bald tires and no brakes, and release myself of liability by calling it an “emergency” when I plow into and destroy other people’s property. In the same way, those bringing drugs into a country and causing a drug crisis can’t, lawfully, turn around and scream “drug emergency,” and those who entice masses of immigrants into a country, dangling the welfare state carrot, can’t lawfully declare a “National Immigration Emergency,” and those creating money out of thin air, and toying with its inflationary and deflationary “value” at whim, can’t lawfully yell “economic emergency” when the event they systematically plan, happens…but they do…

Like previous presidents, Trump has invoked the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), declaring “National Emergencies” to implement Executive Orders. He is again preparing to declare a “National Emergency” under the guise of an immigration emergency to get up his border wall (or is it a fence?) “and other matters”.

Hopefully the information below will increase understanding of what the declaration of a “National Emergency” really means to the people living on America.


The word “emergency” is not found in the KJV. It is found in only one of the translations I checked:

Weymouth New Testament, Weymouth, Richard Francis, 1902
2 Corinthians 8:13-14 - I do not urge you to give in order that others may have relief while you are unduly pressed, but that, by equalization of burdens, your superfluity having in the present emergency supplied their deficiency, their superfluity may in turn be a supply for your deficiency later on, so that there may be equalization of burdens.
Compare to KJV:
2 Corinthians 8:13-14 - For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
Lectures on Systematic Theology, Charles G. Finney, 1851
What is implied in the right to govern?

6. It implies obligation, on the part both of the ruler and the ruled, to be always ready, and when occasion arises, actually to make any personal and private sacrifice demanded by the higher public good—to cheerfully meet any emergency, and exercise any degree of self-denial, that can, and will, result in a good of greater value to the public than that sacrificed by the individual, or by any number of individuals, it always being understood, that present voluntary sacrifices shall have an ultimate reward.
7. It implies the right and duty to employ any degree of force, which is indispensable to the maintenance of order, the execution of wholesome laws, the suppression of insurrections, the punishment of rebels and disorganizers, and sustaining the supremacy of moral law. It is impossible that the right to govern should not imply this; and to deny this right, is to deny the right to govern. Should an emergency occur, in which a ruler had no right to use the indispensable means of securing order, and the supremacy of law, the moment this emergency occurred, his right to govern would, and must, cease: for it is impossible that it should be his right to govern, unless it be at the same time, and for the same reason, his duty to govern; and it is absurd to say, that it is his right and duty to govern, and yet at the same time, that he has not a right to use the indispensable means of government. If it be asked, whether an emergency like the one under consideration is possible, and if so what might justly be regarded as such an emergency, I answer, that should circumstances occur under which the sacrifice necessary to sustain, would overbalance the good to be derived from the prevalence of government, this would create the emergency under consideration, in which the right to govern would cease.

The Century Dictionary, an Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, 1895

2. A sudden or unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; specifically, a perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances.

3. A sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity.

4t. Something not calculated upon; an unexpected gain; a casual profit.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1919
emergency, n.

Sudden juncture demanding immediate action
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1968

A sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; specifically, perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity. A relatively permanent condition of insufficiency of service or of facilities resulting in social disturbance or distress. Kardasinksi v. Koford, 88 N.H. 444, 190 A. 702, 703, 111 A.L.R. 1017; Contract Cartage Co. v. Morris, D.C.I11., 59 F.2d 437, 446; Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348, 291 P. 839, 843, 71 A.L.R. 161.

"Emergency" in sense of constitutional provision respecting referendum does not mean expediency, convenience, or best interest. State v. Hinkle, 161 Wash. 652, 297 P. 1071, 1072.

A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a
"state of war". Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732.
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Third Edition, 1969

Confrontation by sudden peril. 38 Am Jist Negl § 41. A pressing necessity: an exigency: an event or occasional combination of circumstances calling for immediate action or remedy. An unforeseen occurrence or condition calling for immediate action to avert eminent danger to life, health. or property. 43 Am J1st Pub Wks § 136.
national emergency.

Any event which threatens peril to the nation or the people. An event of which cognizance must be taken if the safety of the nation and its people is to be preserved.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979

A sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity. Emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action. State v. Perry, 29 Ohio App.2d 33, 278 N.E.2d 50, 53. See also Emergency doctrine; Sudden emergency doctrine.
Emergency doctrine.

Under the doctrine variously referred to as the "emergency," "imminent peril," or "sudden peril" doctrine, when one is confronted with a sudden peril requiring instinctive action, he is not, in determining his course of action, held to the exercise of the same degree of care as when he has time for reflection, and in the event that a driver of a motor vehicle suddenly meets with an emergency which naturally would overpower the judgment of a reasonably prudent and careful driver, so that momentarily he is thereby rendered incapable of deliberate and intelligent action, and as a result injures a third person, he is not negligent, provided he has used due care to avoid meeting such an emergency and, after it arises, he exercises such care as a reasonably prudent and capable driver would use under the unusual circumstances. Sandberg v. Spoelstra, 46 Wash.2d 776, 285 P.2d 564, 568.

In an emergency situation when medical service is required for an adult who by virtue of his physical condition is incapable of giving consent, or with respect to a child, whose parent or other guardian is absent, and thus incapable of giving consent, the law implies the consent required to administer emergency medical services. This is a good defense to an action of tort for an alleged battery.
National emergency.

A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war". Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732.
Sudden emergency doctrine.

When a person finds himself confronted with a sudden emergency, which was not brought about by his own negligence or want of care, such person has the legal right to do what appears to him at the time he should do, so long as he acts in a reasonably prudent manner as any other person would have done under like or similar circumstances, to avoid any injury, and if he does so act, he will not be deemed to have been negligent even though it might afterwards be apparent that some other course of action would have been safer. Swann v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., C.A.Tex., 436 F.2d 60, 62.

Under sudden emergency doctrine, one placed in position of sudden emergency or peril other than by his own negligence, is not held to same degree of care and prudence as one who has time for thought and reflection. Dadds v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Del., 251 A.2d 559, 560.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999
Emergency Doctrine

1. A legal principle exempting a person from the ordinary standard of reasonable care if that person acted instinctively to meet a sudden and urgent need for aid.
National Emergency

A state of national crisis or a situation requiring immediate and extraordinary national action.
DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 2017
national emergency –

A condition declared by the President or the Congress by virtue of powers previously vested in them that authorize certain emergency actions to be undertaken in the national interest. See also mobilization.
emergency authority —

A Federal military commander’s authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because (1) such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order or (2) duly constituted Federal, state, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental
United States Government Compendium of Interagency and Associated Terms, 2017
emergency –

An unforeseen combination of circumstances, or the resulting state, that calls for immediate action. Emergencies may include a fire, explosion, discovery of an explosive device, severe weather, chemical or biological exposure or threat, hostage situation, or physical threat to building occupants or visitors, terrorist attack, or other national security emergency.
emergency –

Any incident, whether natural or manmade, that requires responsive action to protect life or property. Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, an emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.
USC 50 §98h–3
national emergency –

a general declaration of emergency with respect to the national defense made by the President or by the Congress.
USC 15 §78l
emergency —

(A) a major market disturbance characterized by or constituting— (i) sudden and excessive fluctuations of securities prices generally, or a substantial threat thereof, that threaten fair and orderly markets; or (ii) a substantial disruption of the safe or efficient operation of the national
system for clearance and settlement of transactions in securities, or a substantial threat thereof; or
(B) a major disturbance that substantially disrupts, or threatens to substantially disrupt— (i) the
functioning of securities markets, investment companies, or any other significant portion or segment of the securities markets; or (ii) the transmission or processing of securities transactions.
USC 8 §1187
emergency –

(I) the overthrow of a democratically elected government;
(II) war (including undeclared war, civil war, or other military activity) on the territory of the program country;
(III) a severe breakdown in law and order affecting a significant portion of the program country's territory;
(IV) a severe economic collapse in the program country; or
(V) any other extraordinary event in the program country that threatens the law enforcement or security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States) and where the country's participation in the program could contribute to that threat.
USC 49 §5324
emergency –

a natural disaster affecting a wide area (such as a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, severe storm, or landslide) or a catastrophic failure from any external cause, as a result of which:
(A) the Governor of a State has declared an emergency and the Secretary has concurred; or
(B) the President has declared a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
USC 7 §1736f–1
emergency –

an urgent situation in which there is clear evidence that (a) an event or series of events has occurred that causes human suffering; and (b) for which a government concerned has not chosen, or has not the means, to remedy; or (c) is created by a demonstrably abnormal event or series of events that produces dislocation in the lives of residents of a country or region of a country on an exceptional scale.

McClelland v. Interstate Transit Lines, 142 Neb. 439, 6 N.W.2d 384, 391.
But rule cannot be invoked by one bringing emergency on or not using due care, to avoid it.
Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. pa., 49 F. Supp. 728, 732.
Congress has made little or no distinction between a 'state of national emergency' and a 'state of war'.
The American Print Works vs. Laurens, 1 Zabriskie, 248.
There are cases undoubtedly in which the right to destroy property may exist without any remedy by the owner against the public or individuals. Thus it has been held that the right to destroy property in cases of extreme emergency, as to prevent the spread of a conflagration, is not the exercise of the right of eminent domain, nor the taking of it for public use, but is a right existing at common law, founded on the plea of necessity, and may be exercised by individuals.
Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 138, 41 S.Ct. 138.
…our Supreme Court held, in spite of the constitutional prohibitions, that public emergency ‘may justify a law which could not be upheld as a permanent change.
Jervis v. Hoyt, 2 Hun.(N.Y.) 637; Drummond v. Wood, 2 Caines(N.Y.) 310; Harter v. Blanchard, 64 Barb.(N.Y.) 617; Bartlett v. Sparkman, 95 Mo. 136; 8 S.W. 406
"A deviation from instructions will be excused where an unforeseen emergency requires the agent, in the exercise of his reasonable discretion, to disregard them.”
Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 44 S.Ct. 405, 68 L.Ed. 841.
"A law depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or facts change even though valid when passed."
Jones v. Seward (1863), 40 Barb.(N.Y.) 563, 570.
"If the fathers of the Constitution intended that a dictatorship should exist under any emergency, they would not leave it to the chief executive to assume it when he may, in his discretion, declare necessity required it. That the President can of his own accord assume dictatorial power, under any pretext, is an extravagant presumption."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, State of the Union Address, January 3, 1940
It is not correct to infer that legislative powers have been transferred from the Congress to the Executive Branch of the Government. Everyone recognizes that general tariff legislation is a Congressional function; but we know that, because of the stupendous task involved in the fashioning and the passing of a general tariff law, it is advisable to provide at times of emergency some flexibility to make the general law adjustable to quickly changing conditions.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, State of the Union Address, January 6, 1941
The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The Nation's hands must not be tied when the Nation's life is in danger.

We must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency--almost as serious as war itself--demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense preparations must give way to the national need

A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own groups.

The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of Government to save Government.
Senate Report 93-549: Emergency Powers Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency; Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, 1973

Page 2 –
Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.
Page 2 –
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.
Page 5 –
A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.
Page 10 –
Because Congress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations.
Page 11 -
But emergency powers laws are of such significance to civil liberties, to the operation of domestic and foreign commerce, and the general functioning of the U.S. Government, that, in microcosm, they reflect dominant trends in the political, economic, and judicial life in the United States.
User avatar
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Emergency

Post by notmartha »

Declare A State Of Emergency To Build The Wall?
By Chuck Baldwin
January 17, 2019
During this current partial government shutdown, President Trump has repeatedly threatened to declare a State of National Emergency and use the U.S. military to build his coveted wall across our southern border. And conservatives—even many of the ones I thought had a grasp of the fundamental principles of liberty—are shouting their support.

Don’t get me wrong: I have been a longtime proponent of the U.S. stopping illegal immigration. When I campaigned for President on the Constitution Party ticket back in 2008, putting a stop to illegal immigration was one of the major planks of my platform. (Where were all of these anti-illegal immigration Christians and conservatives then? Supporting pro-illegal immigration Senator John McCain, that’s where.) My strong opposition to illegal immigration earned me a live interview on Lou Dobbs’ national television show and endorsements by several pro-legal immigration groups. My track record against illegal immigration is long and consistent.

However, I have not been shy about opposing Trump’s plan to build a wall. I think walls are a very bad idea. It’s one thing to put a wall around a private residence or even a private “gated” community; it is another thing entirely to fence in a country. Remember, walls not only keep people out (to some extent), they also keep people IN. When governments build walls, they are usually around prisons.

The fact is, we wouldn’t even have an illegal immigration problem if the stupid warmongering neocon foreign policies in Washington, D.C., were not creating refugees all over the world and if the Welfare State in D.C. (and several states within this country) wasn’t holding out every conceivable financial incentive in the world for illegals to ignore our laws and come here. Make no mistake, America’s Warfare State, with its punitive sanctions, embargos, regime changes, etc., is driving people out of their countries; and America’s Welfare State, with its allurement of free medical care, housing, education, food stamps, etc., is enticing illegals to come here—all of the rhetoric of politicians in Washington, D.C., notwithstanding. Solve those problems, and you solve the illegal immigration problem.

But illegal immigration is not the focus of this column.

The focus of this column is not even the wall itself. I oppose the wall, but I acknowledge the right of the President of the United States to build one—IF Congress appropriates the funds to do so. (Republicans held the House and Senate during Trump’s first two years in office. Why didn’t they appropriate funding for the wall then? And why no government shutdown then?) But the idea that Donald Trump will declare a National Emergency to circumvent Congress is abhorrent to every principle of constitutional government. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where the President (any President) is authorized to declare a National Emergency to bypass Congress—because it won’t pass a law he wants passed—and then implement that law via Executive Order. You can’t, because it’s not there.

I well remember Christians and conservatives angrily bashing Barack Obama and Bill Clinton every time they signed an Executive Order. But now these same Christians and conservatives are shouting their support for Donald Trump to pass not just an Executive Order but a National State of Emergency. So much for conservatives supporting the Constitution.

Of course, our federal government didn’t behave constitutionally for most of the Twentieth Century—and it still isn’t. But the unconstitutional conduct of the federal government (and presidents in particular) is not a blessing; it is a curse. Most of the political problems that America is struggling with today are the direct result of the unconstitutional conduct of presidents, congressmen and Supreme Court justices in Washington, D.C.
The fact is, we have been living under an illegal State of National Emergency since 1933. And in 1976, the federal Congress officially passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA). I guess they were tired of being seen as wimpish doormats for unconstitutional bully presidents, so they decided to go ahead and give presidents the authority to do what they do not have the authority to do—but do anyway.

Here is how a Senate committee examining the question in 1973 justified granting the President the power to declare national emergencies:

“[T]his vast range of [presidential] powers, taken together, confer(s) enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional procedures [emphasis added].”

Now, isn’t that hunky-dory? With that kind of reasoning, why even bother electing a Congress or swearing an oath to the Constitution? But I digress.

It didn’t take long. Three years after Congress passed the NEA, President Jimmy Carter declared the first National Emergency under the new law to freeze Iranian assets after the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. That State of Emergency has been renewed every year since by six different presidents, by the way.

Since then, some 58 declarations of National Emergency have taken place, enacted by presidents from both parties, and 31 of these are continually renewed. The thing that would make Trump’s declaration of a State of National Emergency different from the others (should he declare it) is this National Emergency would be directed to military activity within the continental United States.

Everyone seems to agree that when acting under a Declaration of War or a Declaration of National Emergency, a president has virtually king-like power. For all intents and purposes, under such a declaration, a president becomes a monarch. Only a 2/3 majority from both houses of Congress can wrest emergency power from a president—meaning it’s all but impossible.

Add a National Emergency of this nature to existing laws passed by Congress, such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, sections giving domestic police power to the military contained in the NDAA, etc., and we have a recipe for disaster—a REAL emergency.

Author Andrea Pitzer writes:
Writing a history of concentration camps around the globe, I’ve spent several years looking at how leaders, revolutionaries and military juntas have used “states of exception” — situations in which ordinary laws are deferred or no longer apply. The most notorious example played out between the world wars: Before Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in 1933, Article 48 of the Weimar constitution was invoked more than 100 times, allowing the president to override legislative authority. After his appointment, Nazi leadership employed this extraordinary measure more aggressively to cement Hitler’s use of dictatorial power for more than a decade.

But as philosopher Giorgio Agamben noted in his writing on the topic, states of exception weren’t just for Nazis. Article 23 of Argentina’s constitution allowed for the suspension of constitutional guarantees in the event of domestic disorder. When generals seized power there in 1976, they made intricate, exhaustive use of the article to pervert the legal process. In Chile, a coup on Sept. 11, 1973, institutionalized extrajudicial governance, and the resulting state of emergency remained in place for 15 years.

More recently, Myanmar’s fledgling democracy declared a state of emergency over violence in the western state of Rakhine in 2012. The government imposed emergency powers to segregate the Rohingya Muslim population, isolating it behind checkpoints that helped lay the groundwork for ethnic cleansing.
Again and again, when democracies are destabilized, declaring a state of emergency is the linchpin of the process. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson noted in 1952, emergency powers “tend to kindle emergencies."
Pitzer goes on to remind us:
The United States has its own history to consider. In December 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt put Hawaii under martial law in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Early the following year, he signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of about 120,000 Japanese Americans, most of whom were U.S. citizens. According to the popular understanding, the United States was frightened into violations of its own ideals, but that idea is false. Francis Biddle, the attorney general at the time, as well as U.S. naval intelligence and even J. Edgar Hoover at the FBI, understood that mass internment was unnecessary. But the power of the executive, in this case a president deferring to the military, overruled the advice of key officials. The Supreme Court backed the president, denying justice to tens of thousands of detainees.
Pitzer concludes:
Totalitarianism rises out of a process, not a single event. Declaring a state of exception in response to a political impasse would be a big step toward degrading an already vulnerable system. A fake emergency could trigger a real catastrophe — one that a split Congress would be unlikely to resolve and that a Supreme Court sympathetic to an imperial presidency might even worsen. We have more than a century of precedents at home and abroad to demonstrate all the ways things could go wrong.
Agree with building a wall along our southern border or not, this fact cannot be denied: If President Trump declares a National Emergency, he would be doing so to circumvent the will of Congress. That hardly meets the legitimate definition of an “emergency.” Even warmongers G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney only declared a National Emergency after the horrific 9/11 attacks—a Pearl Harbor-type emergency. Obviously, Bush and Cheney used the 9/11 attacks as justification to take us into two unconstitutional and immoral wars against countries that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Besides building a wall, what would Trump justify under his declaration of a National Emergency? I shudder to think about it.

But Trump knows that if he fails to deliver on his promise to build the wall, his base of support will abandon him in droves, and he would have absolutely no chance of winning re-election in 2020. Donald Trump’s re-election hopes depend on the wall. And he knows it. And if Trump eventually caves on funding for the wall, it will be because he plans to leave office before the 2020 elections in order to cut a deal for clemency for himself, his family and his businesses—all of which are up to their eyeballs in criminal conduct—and turn the presidency over to globalist insider and ultra-Zionist Vice President Mike Pence. More on that down the road.

Regardless, the reason America was founded as a constitutional republic and not as a monarchy was to make it difficult for our president to assume monarchical powers. 99.9% of the time, gridlock in Washington, D.C., is GOOD. In a republic, laws are supposed to be difficult to pass. The constitutional checks and balances that retard the advancement of impulsive, frivolous, unnecessary or destructive laws protect liberties, not hinder them.

The problem in America today is both sides of the political debate only want to enforce constitutional (aka “limited”) government when the other side is in power. Democrats are fine with Barack Obama violating the Constitution but scream bloody murder when Donald Trump does it. And Republicans are fine with Donald Trump violating the Constitution but scream bloody murder when Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton does it.

This means that neither liberals nor conservatives, Democrats nor Republicans are constitutionally principled. All either side wants is power. And I have never seen anyone from either political party who lusts for power more than Donald J. Trump. I shudder to think what this aspiring despot would do should he declare a State of National Emergency that targets America’s homeland.

Do I want to stop illegal immigration? You bet I do. But do I want to see a President become a monarch and destroy our Constitution to do it? Absolutely not!

I ask you, if we violate the laws of the land, how are we any better than those we want to keep out of our country for violating the laws of the land? And if we let the President of the United States violate the laws of the land, what does that tell the world about America?

Ah, shucks! I forgot. The American people—including our pastors and churches—have been letting their presidents violate the laws of the land (and the laws of God and Nature) for decades. So, why should I think it would stop now? Silly me.

P.S. I have a 5-DVD, 9-message series entitled Natural Law, Liberty And Government available at a huge discount. These 9 messages discuss the Biblical standard for government, the relationship between Natural Law and liberty, the scriptural influence on our Bill of Rights, the Christian’s call to liberty and the relationship and/or distinction between sin, crime, government and God.

These messages contain the foundational principles of government that were commonly understood and proclaimed by both philosopher and pulpiteer for hundreds of years before and after America’s founding—principles that have been forsaken and forgotten in both our churches and our halls of congress for nearly a century. These are the principles that built—and could once again rebuild—America’s constitutional republic.
Right now, this series of DVD messages is available at a HUGE DISCOUNT. To order this 5-DVD, 9-message series, Natural Law, Liberty And Government, go here:
Natural Law, Liberty & Government Package
© Chuck Baldwin
https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/DesktopMod ... =437025836
User avatar
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Emergency

Post by notmartha »

Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States National Security & Defense
Issued on: February 15, 2019

The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics. The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch’s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years. In particular, recent years have seen sharp increases in the number of family units entering and seeking entry to the United States and an inability to provide detention space for many of these aliens while their removal proceedings are pending. If not detained, such aliens are often released into the country and are often difficult to remove from the United States because they fail to appear for hearings, do not comply with orders of removal, or are otherwise difficult to locate. In response to the directive in my April 4, 2018, memorandum and subsequent requests for support by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense has provided support and resources to the Department of Homeland Security at the southern border. Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address the crisis.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments. I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall order as many units or members of the Ready Reserve to active duty as the Secretary concerned, in the Secretary’s discretion, determines to be appropriate to assist and support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security at the southern border.

Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, shall take all appropriate actions, consistent with applicable law, to use or support the use of the authorities herein invoked, including, if necessary, the transfer and acceptance of jurisdiction over border lands.

Sec. 3. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.


I'll post about the term "border" in the future, but for now here is a map showing the extent of the "border" that may be occupied by the military industrial complex, keeping in mind that in Sec. 2 jurisdiction was also given "over border lands"

Post Reply