Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type of information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933:

"Title III ­ Financing ­and Exercising Power Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money and To Regulate the Value Thereof."

From Section 43, of Exhibit 52:

"Whenever the President finds upon investigation that the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely affected . . . and an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion . . . To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into agreements with the several Federal Reserve banks . . . ."

Remember that in the Constitution it states that Congress has the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can it be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the Constitution as its authority to do so?

Under Section 1 of the same Act we find the following:

"To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be issued in such amount, or amounts as he may from time to time order, United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled 'An Act to authorize the issue of United States notes for the redemption of funding thereof and for funding the floating debt of the United States, approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof'."

What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn't even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional dictatorship. There was not even a Congress in session for six weeks.

When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered the following statement into the Congressional record: "The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed . . . " This is the exact language of March 9, 1933 and Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b), today.

We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency itself must be cancelled. Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13:

"This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended."

Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress has already delegated all of that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress:

"Furthermore, it would be a largely futile task unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President ­ in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive ­ we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President's acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation."

It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to, and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not terminated for over 60 years [75 years in 2008].

Now, that's no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself. But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that it has been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report, how long do you think the blindness of the American public to this situation would have continued, and with it the abolishment of the Constitution? But we're not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Senator Church:

"These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased."

Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement:

"Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than their original intention . . . Machiavelli, in his 'Discourses of Livy', acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may easily corrupt the people."

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of termination of the standing national emergency:

"As a consequence, a 'national emergency' is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has be come the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What we intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become every day powers, and a state of 'emergency' has become a permanent condition."

From United States vs. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935):

"A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of the government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act."

What is being said here is that a tax can only be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn't it?

Quoting further from United States vs. Butler:

"The regulation of farmer's activities under the statute, though in form subject to his own will, is in fact coercion through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a farmer's consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better. At best it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states."

Speaking of contracts, those contracts are coercion contracts. They are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They are under the belligerent capacity of government over enemies. They are not valid contracts.

Again from United States vs. Butler:

"If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, this clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of agriculture and all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define the limit of the powers of the United States and preserve the powers of the states, could be broken down, the independence of the individual states obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all local control over local concerns."

Please, read the above paragraph again. The understanding of its meaning is vital.

The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the nationalization, unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it down flat. The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They said, in effect, "You're turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state, exercising uncontrolled police power." What did Roosevelt do next? He stacked the Supreme Court, didn't he? And in 1937, United States vs. Butler was overturned.

From the 65th Congress, 1st Session, Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find:

"The existence of war and the restoration of peace are to be determined by the political department of the government, and such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts, and deprives the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining as a question of fact either that war exists or has ceased to exist."

The courts will tell you that it is a political question, for they (the courts) do not have jurisdiction over the common law.

The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the common laws. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find:

"When the sovereign authority shall choose to bring it into operation, the judicial department must give effect to its will. But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation can exist in the court."

From Senate Report 93-549:

"Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that the separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious national emergency."

So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, "Emergency Administration":

"Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt's general polity to assign new, emergency functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments."

Thus, thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies are now sitting out there with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9