Draft or Prison? Options

[ComradeRed]

Yes.

The establishment of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 and its Bill of Rights in 1791 was a fundamental innovation in jurisprudence. It introduced the first constitutional republic, with a written constitution that superseded the Common Law that preceded it, while incorporating that part of the Common Law not in conflict with it, and provided that all subsequent statutory law and official acts must be based on its provisions and not in conflict with it. Any statute or official act not so based, or in such conflict with it, was to be considered unconstitutional, and null and void from inception.

Unfortunately, despite the nominal commitment to compliance with the Constitution, legislators and officials have failed to comply with it in many instances. Most of these instances were justified as necessary to deal with perceived crises, especially war and depression. Some of these instances include the Dick Act of 1903 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. But perhaps the most important was the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, and particularly its amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and its ratification of such executive orders as the Proclamation 2040 by President Roosevelt issued on March 6, 1933, sometimes called the Emergency and War Powers order. This act, codified as 12 USC 95(b), effectively declared the Constitution suspended and conferred dictatorial powers on the President, a situation which continues to this day.

Following this there was a long train of unconstitutional legislation and executive orders, made possible by intimidation of the federal courts. Although some reference to provisions of the Constitution was made to justify them, especially an expanded interpretation of "interstate commerce", it is argued that what was really done was suspension of the Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land" and the extension of the "Law of the Sea" over the land, making all federal courts admiralty courts, under the executive authority of the President. The "Law of the Sea" is a branch of Common Law under which the President and admiralty courts exercise essentially dictatorial powers, akin to martial law.

Under this assumed authority, the U.S. Congress, the President, and the federal courts have extended their powers and jurisdiction far beyond the limits imposed on them under the Constitution, in violation of the 10th Amendment.

Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." It goes on to say:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all 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. In the United States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National emergency."...

"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process.

"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."

The problem, of course, is that the Constitution does not provide for its own suspension, under some Rule of Necessity, only for temporary suspension of the right of habeas corpus, nor does Congress have such emergency and war powers or the power to delegate them to the President. Such a doctrine of "emergency rule" is a legalistic façade, perhaps providing a defense against summary judgement by a lawful court, but not providing true legal authority. The Constitution is not just the Supreme Law of the Land, but of all operations of the institutions it establishes, as agents of the People, including those at sea and those involving the laws of nations, forbidding them to exercise any powers not specifically delegated to them, in any field of action.

A difficulty for this regime is that the vast majority of people in and out of government are unaware of such emergency rule. As far as they are concerned, the Constitution is still in full force and effect. Many of them continue to take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Some of them are aware of their role as militiamen, as defenders of the State and its Constitution, with a duty to not only obey the Constitution and constitutional laws, but to do what they can to enforce them as well, singly or in concert with one another.

This is the first third of the article: about the COG: http://www.constitution.org/mil/lawnanti.htm

[EmeraldKnight]

Wow... I'll get around to reading that.. someday..

Haha I didnt think you were actually serious about that.. that's somewhat.. alarming..

[ComradeRed]

Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." It goes on to say:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the constitution have, in varying degrees, bee]n abridged by laws brought into force by states of National emergency. In the United States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National emergency."...

"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process.

"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."

That's pretty damn scary, actually. And this was 30 years ago. The situation is MUCH worse today. You have much more to fear from this than from terrorists, communists, Arabs, drugs, black people, skinheads, immigrants, space aliens, etc.

[EmeraldKnight]

"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."

Wow.... its not still effect now is it?

[ComradeRed]

Of course it is. And since the War on Drugs and the Patriot Act, it is in even greater effect today than ever before.

Under the 1980 Controlled Substances Act, the President can seize your property without consent of Congress as long as he thinks you are involved in drugs. There is no way to get your property back other than suing the President, which is impossible if you're poor and you can't afford a lawyer since you just had all your money seized.

The War Powers Act allows the President to deploy troops without consent of Congress for 60 days (I think it was raised to 90). Furthermore, he can declare martial law during that period as well, effectively making him absolute dictator for two months.

[EmeraldKnight]

Of course it is. And since the War on Drugs and the Patriot Act, it is in even greater effect today than ever before.

Under the 1980 Controlled Substances Act, the President can seize your property without consent of Congress as long as he thinks you are involved in drugs. There is no way to get your property back other than suing the President, which is impossible if you're poor and you can't afford a lawyer since you just had all your money seized.

The War Powers Act allows the President to deploy troops without consent of Congress for 60 days (I think it was raised to 90). Furthermore, he can declare martial law during that period as well, effectively making him absolute dictator for two months.

Dude... that is just stupid... so he can deploy troops and declare martial law at any given time for 60 (90) days?

[ComradeRed]

Yes... that's why he could invade Iraq first, and then get Congressional sanction later. It's blatantly unconstitutional and should be repealed.

[EmeraldKnight]

Yes... that's why he could invade Iraq first, and then get Congressional sanction later. It's blatantly unconstitutional and should be repealed.

This country's government is realli lame now... what happened to the original ideals envisioned by the founding fathers? (I love how far this topic's diverged..)

[ComradeRed]

They don't exist any more. We can see some of Alexander Hamilton's ideas in place today, but Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine have long since died (ideas: www.cato.org, www.lp.org), and same with Benjamin Franklin and George Washington (ideas: www.constitution.org).

"Every revolution devours its own children."
--Ernst Rohm

[EmeraldKnight]

They don't exist any more. We can see some of Alexander Hamilton's ideas in place today, but Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine have long since died (ideas: www.cato.org, www.lp.org), and same with Benjamin Franklin and George Washington (ideas: www.constitution.org).

"Every revolution devours its own children."
--Ernst Rohm

How the heck do you know these sites?

Kinda ironic that its just been Independence day.. yet we've strayed so far from the original intents and ideology...

EDIT://
Wait.. if the draft is illegal as you've said, shouldnt the right thing to do be going to prison, instead of following an illegal act? or is my logic completely wrong

[ComradeRed]

The right thing to do, in my opinion, would be to commit civil disobedience and go to prison.

[EmeraldKnight]

The right thing to do, in my opinion, would be to commit civil disobedience and go to prison. 

Isnt that what i said? but in less technically precise terms?

[aud_chua]

i'd rather go to prison.. at least they feed you and you don't hafta kill anyone... that's my 2 cents on it... (or penny since it's such a short response... ^^; )

[ComradeRed]

Uh... they feed you in the army too... And yes, you do have to kill people in prison.

[Dar|<]

I would kill for free....There is never any real cause for death.

[sadolakced acid]

killing innocents?

that's what you'd be doing if you obeyed the draft then.

[EmeraldKnight]

killing innocents?

that's what you'd be doing if you obeyed the draft then.

You do that as a soldier.. what's your point?

I would kill for free....There is never any real cause for death.

WTF???

Uh... they feed you in the army too... And yes, you do have to kill people in prison.

When do you have to kill people in prison? How often?

[ComradeRed]

When do you have to kill people in prison? How often?

Killing that 300-lb serial killer named Bubba right next to you is in just as much self-defense as shooting an Iraqi partisan...

[sadolakced acid]

unless that serial killer looked at you wrong. then it's much more justified.