FROM THE EDITOR: I keep running through interesting, historical articles while surfing the internet. This one, written by Gary Hunt in May 24, 1994, is an example of how much information is out there that most of us – purposely – were never thought to us in school. El Reportero takes pride in sharing this very informative article with our readers, and hope your learn from it and enjoy it very much. Due to its length, it will be published in several partes.
by Gary Hunt
It seems that we have all heard that “martial law” had been declared and that we have been living under it for most, if not all, of our lives. I, like many others, looked at the circumstances and assumed that this could be true. I have not, however, been able to find the documentation of this matter and, therefore, have been reluctant to claim such.
Thanks to a very close fiend from Dallas, Texas, that I have never met (he was my “alarm clock” during the siege in Waco — by virtue of calling me every morning, to wake me up), I now have most of the paperwork that supports this contention. This paperwork comes from a Citizens for Legal Reform meeting, January 18, 1994, “Abolition of the United States Constitution Under the War Powers Act”, by Dr. Gene Schroder.
It is important, since we now know this to be true, to understand exactly how it was that we came under “Martial Law.” It is one thing to assume that it is true, another to know that is true and quite another to KNOW why it is true. I will give quotes and refer to the documents from which they are taken.
WORLD WAR I
World War I, the War to end all wars, allowed the Congress to pass the “Trading with the enemy Act.” [SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 106, “An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.”] The Act was passed on October 6, 1917. Portions of said Act are presented below:
Section 2(c) contains the definition of “enemy”, to include, “Such other individuals or body or class of individuals as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, . . . may, by Proclamation, include within the tern “enemy” (emphasis mine).
Section 5(a) gives the President the authority to suspend the Act with regard to any ally of the enemy as he shall determine to be appropriate. An interesting assumption that the President may allow continuation of trade with an enemy, indirectly, based upon his determination!
Section 5(b), however, allows the President to “. . . regulate, or prohibit, . . . any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, . . . . by any person within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any s such transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, . . .”
Interesting that he has also made testimony compulsory. This appears to be a direct violation of that portion of Article V, Bill of Rights, which states, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” and is the beginning of the decimation of our Rights protected thereunder.
Section 6 provides for “officials to he known as “alien pi property custodians”, who will be empowered to receive all money or property owned by, or owed to, any enemy or ally of enemy.” Has this become the IRS?
Interesting that the authority granted the President allowed such a broad degree of discretion, and that the “gold and silver” mandated by the Constitution would be an object of this Act. My recollection was that Habeas Corpus may be suspended only, “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety , may require it.”
The Writ of Habeas Corpus provision provides that no one may be arrested by the government, unless the arrest is made pursuant to the Constitution. Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, says, “No person .shall he held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces; or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person he subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he compelled in any criminal erase to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Perhaps the intended meaning of this provision has been lost. Does it mean, among other things, that the government may not arrest anyone unless the determination that an arrest is to be made is made by a group of peers? That government, of and by itself, has not the authority to arrest anyone? Except, of course, in those times where a national emergency is declared?
So, perhaps the meanings given to the words by the Founding Fathers has been lost. Law enforcement officers make arrests, without indictments by the Grand Jury, and property is “seized”, under property forfeiture laws, daily. Perhaps we have found why these sacred protections have slowly eroded into what we have been led to believe is good “crime control.” Perhaps we have been LIED to by the very people chosen to represent us.
So much for this, however, because the War ended and all returned to normal — except the fact that Congress had allowed this Act, which was a step in denial of Constitutional protection, to continue to exist.
Did these Acts of Congress continue to affect our daily lives? Or, were they discontinued at the end of hostilities? Go to your local law library and read 12 USC §95(b).