United States

World Net Daily has published an article which includes the March 26, 2009 interdepartmental memorandum prepared by DHS for local law enforcement regarding the "extremist" groups of potential domestic terrorists.  The list is so lengthy it took over 10 pages in order to outline them all. 

You most likely are on the list, since it doesn't appear they left anyone out, unless you are a government employee drone or work in the mainstream media.

There was an interesting paragraph regarding who it was that actually identified these potential terrorists groups:

"Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials andunclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops withDHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism inthe United States."

I wonder if these "intelligence analysts" got their degrees online?  There is now an online university that is cashing in on this booming surveillance industry offering courses that can be completed in the comfort of your own home for less than it costs for two years at the average technical college.

The memo, Ms. Napoliano claims, was immediately yanked.  But, of course, it does appear that many local and state authorities mustn't have gotten that message prior to the Missouri memo surfacing, nor was it addressed in any fundamental way after the tea parties, other than apologies made to the American Legion, a Congressionally created veterans organization.

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

An announced "Hispanic" woman, educated at Princeton University (a rather "liberal" teaching institution with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become.  And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication. 

Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is a contract between the federal and state government and it's people, and the defacto Law of the Land. 

As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is  based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." 

The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:

Section 256. Generally. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]

A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]

The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]

An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]

The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.

Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification." 

With President-Elect Obama about to become President Obama I wanted to take a moment to reflect on the end of President George W. Bush’s time in office.  I do not want to reflect on his policies or his legacy; but, better yet the way people better Democrats have shown us how not to treat the person that holds the highest office in the land.  Over the past five years and especially during President Bush’s second term we have seen the President be ridiculed and downright disrespected. 

This disrespect was rarely geared towards his policies; but, more towards the individual.  Over the past four years you have heard the President be called a war monger, a fascist, a racist (thanks Kanye West), an idiot, and my personal favorite phrase “I am smarter than he is”.  Even now in the final days of his presidency there is an article in the Rolling Stone saying how the end cannot come quick enough.

That brings me to the point of how we as Republicans should treat President Obama.  We should treat him with respect and we should respect the office that he holds.  The office of the President has been slandered by so many over the past few years and we should not make the same mistake.

Now, I will bring this full circle.  We should all watch President Obama and make sure that when he does something that we disagree with we voice our opinions loud and clear.  We should make it known that we disagree with card check, the bail outs, the fairness doctrine, tax hikes, and anything else that should come along that we disagree with.  But, we should never slander the man or the office that he holds. 

We are better than that.

So, say a pray for him (he will need it) and then get ready to work against him in 2012. 

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Is the doctrine of Posse Comitatus coming to an end? The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and has been an important law. Wikipedia reflects:

"The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services ... from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain 'law and order' on non-federal property. . . . The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. . . . The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

Gina Cavallaro at the Army Times announced reports: 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home. Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas. But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities. . . .

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.” . . . they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

Obviously, we would appreciate the military's assistance if we had a massive terrorist attack in the United States; especially with the taking out the "bad guys."  But do we want the military doing police actions related to routine national, regional or even local "civil unrest and crowd control"? When did the transfer of authority occur which granted military control within the the borders of the Unites States? Before proceeding, let me note that military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In the study of military doctrine and history, military officers confront the theory and past applications as to the extent military officers and the people under their command may be or have been called upon to intervene in domestic affairs. However, Posse Comitatus has provided a clear line in the sand.

Presidents have used the military to enforce their will within the United States. For example George Washington, our first president, used his authority as commander-in-chief in 1794 to call out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. President Andrew Jackson ignored the 1832 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and forced removal of Native Americans from East of the Mississippi which lead to the infamous Trail of Tears. In 1878, after the bitterness of the Civil War and the quartering of Union troops in the South, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. However, Presidents continued to use the military and the National Guard to enforce their will on the citizens of the Unites States.

One of the worst examples of the use of the military was in the summer of 1932 against 43,000 fellow military veterans, their families and affiliated groups who had assembled in Washington D.C. in what became known as the famous Bonus March. Skipping the merits of the Bonus Army and moving to the conclusion, we find President Herbert Hoover using the military led by General Douglas MacArthur to suppress and disburse fellow veterans. By the time the events ended, hundreds of veterans were injured and several were killed. In this situation, "The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not legally because Washington, D.C. is a federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)."

In 2005, we saw National Guard assist in the aftermath of Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi. However, the National Guard and the New Orleans police overstepped their legal authority, per the U.S. District Court, and illegally confiscated the personal firearms of vulnerable civilians after the hurricane's devastation left property and lives subject to looters and other criminals. Have we and our leaders accepted that Constitutional Rights granted by the US constitution are sacrosanct?

Apparently not! Currently, individual rights may be more at risk as we address the potential of terrorist threats against the United States. The effects of the infamous terrorists attacks on 9-11 continue to ripple through our country. For example, in 2006, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 passed and was signed into law. The Act included a section titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." This section provided that "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines...." However, in 2008, Congress while passing the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, restored the restrictions of Posse Comitatus. President George Bush signed the Act into law but he also attached an Executive Order identifying that the Executive Branch does not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal of the use of armed forces to restore public order in the United States. As previously presidents have done, Bush signaled that he does do not feel bound by Posse Comitatus.

We are now brought full circle to the announcement of the assignment of an Army brigade as well as other service units to enforce the will of the President and or the Department of Defense with regard to homeland security. Even if military units are not used for several years to respond to domestic threats and are not used in any way for several years to restrict the rights of Americans, the result will still be the continued implied transference of authority as troops continue to be assigned to a domestic charter and the leaders of these units develop a comprehensive doctrine designed to cope with domestic situations. Historically, the year 2008 may become identified as the year that the doctrine of Posse Comitatus ceased to have authority.
---------------
William (Bill) Smith, Ph.D. is editor of the ARRA News Service and National Political Director of Let's Get This Right. He is a conservative political activists working for limited government, traditional family values, individual freedom and responsibility. He is a retired Air Force officer who served as Director of the $2 billion European F-16 co-production program. In his career, he also taught military political science and spent a 3 year tour with the U.S. Army. After retiring, he was a graduate professor and held varied administrative and faculty positions. He has authored professional journal articles on varied topics. He also blogs as Ozark Guru.