Emergency & War Powers Act
By Henry V. Martin and David Caul
NATIONAL EMERGENCY: (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary) 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.
This report begins with a series of documents which are representative (Exhibits 1
through 7), of the documents contained in this Report. We will be quoting from in many
cases, reports, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency
Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.
Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by Swisher called Constitutional Development. Let's
read the first paragraph. It says:
"We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established," said Charles E.
Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice) in 1920, "whether constitutional government as
heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously
How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we'd have to end
up stronger than the day we started, wouldn't we? Justice Hughes goes on to say:
"The conflict known as the World War had ended as far as military hostilities were
concerned, but was not yet officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in
effect, many of the emergency organizations were still in operation."
What is this man talking about when he speaks of "war statutes in effect and emergency
organizations still in operation"?
In 1933 (Exhibit 9), Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states:
"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with
the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress
declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very
doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the
parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it
should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the
law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank
about it. We pay the Constitution lip service, but the result is the same."
Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this
doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an
emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say:
"But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the
federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not
dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily
it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress
within the limits of its Constitutional powers."
What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the Farm Bill
by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an
emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. The cause and effect of the doctrine of
emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10),
the first sentence reads:
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national
Let's go back to Exhibit 9 just before this. What did that say? It says that if a national
emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 10. Since
March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national
Referring to the middle of this exhibit:
"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country
without reference to normal constitutional processes. 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
and this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933. In the
introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11):
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency
Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on to say:
"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
The introduction continues:
"And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have
from, at least, the Civil War, in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a
permanent state of national emergency."
How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that something
which could suspend our Constitution would not be taught in school? Amazing, isn't it?
Where does this (Exhibit 12) come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there
could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are
referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America, we
find the following words:
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in
Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."
Habeas Corpus - the Great Writ of Liberty. This is the writ which guarantees that the
government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they follow the
procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due
process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot not operate its
arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of
Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion
In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (Exhibit 13), it says:
"No person shall be 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..."
We reserved the charging power for ourselves, didn't we? We didn't give that power to
the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless to charge
one of the citizens or one of the peoples of the United States with a crime unless We, the
People, through our grand jury, orders it to do so through an indictment or a
presentment. And if We, the People, don't order it, the government cannot do it. If it tried
to do it, we would simply follow the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and they would have to
release us, wouldn't they? They could not hold us.
But let us recall that, in Exhibit 13, it says:
"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service
in times of War or public danger."
We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already contemplating times
when there would be conditions under which it might be necessary to suspend the
guarantees of the Constitution.
Also from Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 14), and remember that our congressmen wrote
these reports and these documents and they're talking about these emergency powers
and they say:
"They are quite careful and restrictive on the power, but the power to suspend is
specifically contemplated by the Constitution in the Writ of Habeas Corpus."
Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers for many, many
years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear back to the Roman
Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire emergencies, yes, the
constitution and the rights of the people could be suspended, temporarily, until the crisis,
whatever its nature, could be resolved.
But once it was done, the Constitution was to be returned to its peacetime position of
authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution could be suspended is
called the State of
Siege. In Great Britain, it's called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which
Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called Article 48. In the United States, it is called
the War Powers.
If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this country, then
there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law that exists today. That
means we should be able to go to the federal code known as the USC or United States
Code, and find that statute, that law, in existence. And if we went to the library today and
picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to Section 95 (b) (Exhibit 15), we will find a law
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or
hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or
the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority
conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended
[12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title I, Sec.
1, 48 Stat. 1.)".
Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the
Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or anything that the President or the
Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and
confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 10, let us remember that, according to the
Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of national
emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95 (b) is current law. This
is the law that exists over this United States this moment.
If that be the case, let us see if we can understand what is being said here. As every
action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury since
March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and approved, let us determine the
significance of that date in history. What happened on March the 4th of 1933?
On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of
the United States. Referring to his inaugural address, which was given at a time when the
country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we read (Exhibit 16):
"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken
nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other
measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek,
within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the
Congress shall fall to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national
emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront
me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis broad
Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would
be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."
On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural, President Roosevelt was saying that he was
going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War
Powers Act. Let's see if he got it.
On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary session of
Congress in Proclamation 2038.
He called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at
that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national
emergency in banking and for other purposes.
In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 17), it states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious
emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies
of uniform national application."
What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the enabling portion of the act
as "imperatively necessary speedily"? The rule of necessity is a rule of law which states
that necessity knows no law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the
concept of self-defense. The law says, "Thou shalt not kill". But also know that, if you are
in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, then you have the absolute right of
self-defense. You have the right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of
Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to
do that which would normally be against the law. So it is reasonable to assume that the
wording of the enabling portion of the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what
follows is something which will probably be against the law. It will probably be against the
Constitution of the United States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be
invoked to enact it.
In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), it further states in Title 1, Section 1:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or
hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or
the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority
conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are
hereby approved and confirmed."
Where have we read those words before? This is the exact same wording as is found
(Exhibit 15) today in Title 12, USC 95B.The language in Title 12, USC 95 (b) is exactly the
same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1.
The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are still under the Rule
of Necessity. We are still in a declared state of national emergency, a state of emergency
which has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty years.
As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by Subsection (b) of Section
5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was the authority which was used to
declare and enact the emergency in this Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917
(Exhibit 18), we see that at the top right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:
"An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."
By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War 1; at that point, it was
recognized that there were probably enemies of the United States, or allies of enemies of
the United States, living within the continental borders of our nation in a time of war.
Therefore, Congress passed this act which identified who could be declared enemies of
the United States, and, in this act, we gave the government total authority over those
enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, however, in Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the
middle, and again at the bottom of the page:
"other than citizens of the United States."
The act specifically excluded citizens of the United States, because we realized in 1917
that the citizens of the United States were not enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the
war powers over enemies in this act.
Section 5 (b) of the same act (Exhibit 19), states:
"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and
regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in
foreign exchange, export or ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency,
transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be
executed wholly within the United States)".
Again, we see here that citizens, and the transactions of citizens made wholly within the
United States, were specifically excluded from the war powers of this act. "We the
People", were not enemies of our country; therefore, the government did not have total
authority over us as they were given over our enemies.
It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the United States in
October, 1917, were not called enemies. Consequently the government, under the war
powers of this act, did not have authority over us; we were still protected by the
Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do
anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made between enemies of
the United States and citizens of the United States will become crucial later on.
In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17),
"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended,
is hereby amended to read as follows;"
So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let's see how it reads
after it's amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis added):
"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the
President, the President may, through any agency that be may designate, or otherwise,
investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as be may prescribe,
by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of
credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and
export, hoarding, melting, or ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by
any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were
concerned, the people of the United States were no longer differentiated from any other
enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17
with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly
within the United States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of
the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with "by any person within the United
States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions, whether
domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the President of the
United States through the authority given to him by the Trading with the Enemy Act.
To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of
America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading with the Enemy Act
empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or
business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental
borders. That act also defined the term "enemy" and excluded from that definition citizens
of the United States.
In Section 5 (b) of this act, we see that the President was given unlimited authority to
control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that credits relating
solely to transactions executed wholly within the United States were excluded from that
controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from
authority, the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business
conducted by the citizens of the United States, because we were certainly not enemies.
Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the
transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy
transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17),
we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed
from the amended version and replaced with "by any person within the United States or
anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.
The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading with the
Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial,
monetary, and, in effect, all business transactions. "We the People", became the same as
the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it
states: "during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the
President...". So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but
also a period of "national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States.
When either of these two situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 17)
"through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or
prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe by means of licenses or
otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments
by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, boarding, melting or
earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United
States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this Section? He can do
anything he wants to do. It's purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any
license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.
In Senate Document 93-549 (Exhibit 20), Congress declared that a serious emergency
"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was
deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time."
Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973. Now let's find out about the Trading with the
Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision (Exhibit 21),
Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:
"The Trading With the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure,
and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters
of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" Const.
Art. 1, Sect. 8, c1. 11. P.241".
Remember your Constitution? "Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant
letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land
and the water of the enemies," all rules.
If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the
enemy, the "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of
Trading With the Enemy" (Exhibit 22), remembering that we are now the same as the
enemy. In this memorandum, we read:
"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to
mere commercial intercourse."
This is the case of The Rapid (1814). Additionally,
"No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a
remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil
law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio".
In other words, they have no personal lights at law in court. This is the case of The Julia
In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 23), we read the words:
"By the general law of prize, property engaged in an illegal intercourse with the enemy is
deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or to a
citizen; the illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it all the
penal consequences of enemy ownership".
Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:
"The law of prize is part of the law of nations. In it, a hostile character is attached to trade,
independently of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to
the use of the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the
property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be engaged in
a hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose cause he
Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 24):
"The produce of the soil of the hostile territory, as well as other property engaged in the
commerce of the hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always
regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner".
From the case (Exhibit 25) of The William Bagaley (1866):
"In general, during war, contracts with, or powers of attorney or agency from, the enemy
executed after outbreak of war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy
prior to the war are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships with an
enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney from the enemy, with certain exceptions, lapse;
payments to the enemy (except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war
and confirmed since the war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the
courts are suspended."
From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 26), in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate,
and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read:
"The trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d)
and (e), page 4. This trade covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden
and made unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the
Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). This authorization of trading under
licenses constitutes the principal modification of the rule of international law forbidding
trade between the citizens of belligerents, for the power to grant such licenses, and
therefore exemption from the operation of law, is given by the bill."
It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted without a license,
because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all intercourse is
That was the first case we looked at, Exhibit 22, wasn't it? So once we were declared
enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way we could now do business or
any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from our government by means of
a license. We are certainly required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to
work, and a Drivers License, which gives the government the ability to restrict travel; all
business in which we engage ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?
Returning once again to the Memorandum of Law: (Exhibit 27)
"But it is necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting
somebody, even, at times, our own citizens. The public good, however, must prevail over
private gain. As we said in Bishop v. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there cannot be "a war for
arms and a peace for commerce". One of the most important features of the bill is that
which provides for the temporary taking over of the enemy property."
This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary takeover of
enemy property. The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be
returned, mustn't it?
The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent night of the government during the
period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship
in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, "I'm seizing your ship." Can you stop
him? No. But when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is
important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.
Reading from (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold" written
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is
only by virtue of government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in
accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who has the
authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, (Exhibit
29) United States v. Russell:
"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just
That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis added),
"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of
extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which
private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or
appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner..."
This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid frustration of the potential power of the
Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a close look at what
really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers, and called a special session of
Congress for the purpose of having those powers conferred to him.
On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the
Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based
on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a
resolution (Exhibit 30) which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:
"Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the
opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the
continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country
has now created a national emergency ..."
In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913,
The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the
thought of which had already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the
central bank was, among other things, for it to act as a secure repository for the gold of
the people. We, the People, would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the
Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time
we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which
we had deposited.
Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its
depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable
in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the
Depression, at the time when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our
families fed, the bankers began to say: "People are coming in now, wanting their gold,
wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on
demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency."
How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 31):
"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that, in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is
hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday,
Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6.
In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and
make it unavailable make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen
during that period of time?
Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution (Exhibit 31), we find a
proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows:
"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that
"the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as
he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign
exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or ear markings of gold or silver coin or
bullion or currency, *** "
Now, in any normal usage of the American language, the standard accepted meaning of
a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows also must be quoted
exactly, doesn't it? If it's not, that's a fraudulent use of the American language. At that
point where that, *** " began, what did the original Act of October 6, 1917, say?
Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917 says:
"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United
This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government from taking control of
We, the People's money and transactions, didn't it?
However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as
amended on March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17):
"by any person within the United States or any place subject to the Jurisdiction thereof."
Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can see the full
significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion of domestic transactions from
the powers of the Act was deleted, and "any person" became subject to the extraordinary
powers conferred by the act. Further, we can now see that the usage of *** " was, in all to
likelihood, meant be deliberately misleading, if not fraudulent in nature.
Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board's proposal, we find that anyone
violating any provision of this act will be fined not more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned
for not more than ten years, or both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made
all the more harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves
at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the
government itself, initially; no, they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal
Reserve Board of New York, a banking institution.
Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of
the United States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal Reserve Board of New
York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that President Hoover did not act
on the recommendation, and believed the actions were "neither justified nor necessary"
(Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088) . Let us see what happened;
remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of
the United States. On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary
session of Congress to be held on March 9,1933, as can be seen in Exhibit 32:
"Whereas, public interests require that the Congress of the United States should be
convened in extra session at twelve o'clock, noon, on the Ninth day of March, 1933, to
receive such communication as may be made by the Executive."
On the next day, March 6, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which
has been included in this report, starting at the bottom of Exhibit 32. In Exhibit 32, we find
"Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency
from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding"
Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the question of who
should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on deposit at the Federal Reserve, with
which I have a contract which says, in effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion,
is being withdrawn by me in an "unwarranted" manner.
Remember, the people of the United States were in dire economic straits at this point. If I
had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing as much of my gold as I
needed for my family and myself a "warranted" action. But the decision was not left up to
We, the People.
It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being withdrawn for the purpose
of "hoarding". The significance of this phrase becomes clearer when we reach
Proclamation 2039, wherein the term "hoarding" is inserted into the amended version of
Section 5(b). The term, "hoarding", was not to be found in the original version of Section
5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. It was a term which was used by President Roosevelt
to help support his contention that the United States was in the middle of a national
emergency, and his assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War
Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.
Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next page, Exhibit
33. In reading from Exhibit 33, we find the following:
"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411)
as amended, " that the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules
and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transaction
in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver
coin or bullion or currency * * * "
exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit 31).
If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended
Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:
"by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933, President
Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on March 6, 1933, issued
Proclamation 2039 (Exhibits 32-33). On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040.
We looked at Proclamation 2039 on Exhibits 32 and 33, and now, on Exhibit 33 (a), let's
see what Roosevelt is hiking about in Proclamation 2040:
"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of
America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and
proclaimed a bank holiday... "
We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday. Let's read on:
"Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter
issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed;"
This section of the Proclamation clearly states that all proclamations heretofore or
hereafter issued by the President are approved and confirmed, citing the authority of
Section 5 (b). The key words here being "all" and "approved". Further:
"Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further
measures extending beyond March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes"
We again clearly see that there is more to come, evidenced by the phrase, "further
measures extending beyond March 9, 1933 ...". Could this be the beginning of a new
deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How long can this type of action continue? Let's find out.
"Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in
view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by
Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of
March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and
provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued
thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the
We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933 and Proclamation
2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such time as another proclamation is made by
"the President". Note that the term "the President" is not specific to President Roosevelt;
it is a generic term which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the
present, and beyond.
So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we are now
beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and closing the national banks
for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that the Proclamations bringing
about these actions will continue "in full force and effect" until such time as the President,
and only the President, changes the situation.
It is important to note the fact that these Proclamations were made on March 6, 1933,
three days before Congress was due to convene its extra session. Yet references are
made to such things as the amended Section 5 (b), which had not yet even been
confirmed by Congress. President Roosevelt must have been supremely confident of
Congress' confirmation of his actions. And indeed, we find that confidence was justified.
For on March 9, 1933, without individual Congressmen even having the opportunity to
read for themselves the bill they were to confirm, Congress did indeed approve the
amendment of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.
Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 34):
"That those speculators and insiders were right was plain enough later on. This first
contract of the 'moneychangers' with the New Deal netted those who removed their
money from the country a profit of up to 60 percent when the dollar was debased."
Where had our gold gone? Our gold had already been moved offshore. The gold was not
in the banks, and when We, the People lined up at the door attempting to have our
contracts honored, the deception was exposed. What happened then? The laws were
changed to prevent us from asking again, and the military was brought in to protect the
Federal Reserve. We, the People, were declared to be, the same as public enemy and
placed under military authority.
Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 35):
"Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury, such action is necessary to
protect the currency system of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his
discretion, may require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations
to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coin, gold bullion,
and gold certificates owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and
By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in their gold. Failure to do so would
constitute a violation of this provision, such violation to be punishable by a fine of not
more than $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than ten years. It was a seizure.
Whose property may be seized without due process of law under the Trading With the
Enemy Act? The enemy's. Whose gold was seized? Ours - the gold of the people of the
From the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 36):
"During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some form of scrip or emergency
currency would be necessary for the conduct of ordinary business. We knew that it would
be essential when the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to meet
all possible demands of depositors. Consideration was given by government officials and
various government officials and various local agencies to the advisability of issuing
clearinghouse certificates or some similar form of local emergency currency. On March 7,
1933, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a regulation authorizing clearing houses to
issue demand certificates against sound assets of the banking institutions, but this
authority was not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities, the printing of
these certificates was actually begun, but after the passage of the Emergency Banking
Relief Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became evident that they would not be
needed, because the Act made possible the issue of the necessary amount of
emergency currency in the form of Federal Reserve banknotes which could be based on
any sound assets owned by banks."
Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9, 1933 and this
currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes. From Title 4 of the Act of March
9, 1933 (Exhibit 37):
"Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligations of
the United States or (b) of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or bankers' acceptances
acquired under the provisions of this act, any Federal reserve bank making such deposit
in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be entitled to receive
from the Comptroller of the currency circulating notes in blank, duly registered and
What is this saying? It says (emphasis added): "Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of
the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the United States ..." What is a direct
obligation of the United States? It's a treasury note, which is an obligation upon whom?
Upon "We the People" to perform. It's a taxpayer obligation, isn't it?
Title 4 goes on: "or (b) of my notes, drafts, bills of exchange or bankers' acceptances..."
What's a note? If you go to the bank and sign a note on your home, that's a note, isn't it?
A note is a private obligation upon We, the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank
deposits either (a) public and/or (b) private obligation of We, the People, with the
Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will issue this circulating note endorsed in
blank, duly registered and countersigned, an emergency currency based on the (a)
public and/or (b) private obligations of the people of the United States.
In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 38), we find evidence that our
congressmen didn't even have individual copies of the bill to read, on which they were
about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around for approximately 40 minutes.
Congressman McFadden made the comment,
"Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the House has had no opportunity to
consider or even read this bill. The first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is,
was when it was read from the clerk's desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a
dictatorship over finance in the United States. It is complete control over the banking
system in the United States ... It is difficult under the circumstances to discuss this bill.
The first section of the bill, as I grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given
back in 1917."
Congressman McFadden later says,
"I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if this is a plan to change the holding of
the security back of the Federal Reserve notes to the Treasury of the United States
rather than the Federal Reserve agent."
Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve bank held our gold as
security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which we could redeem at any time we
wanted. Now, however, Congressman McFadden is asking if this proposed bill is a plan to
change who's going to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.
Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman McFadden's question, again from the
"This provision is for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal
Reserve notes; and the security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of
exchange, bank acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has
We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, wasn't it? We were penniless, and
now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which
We, the People, were the collateral security.
Congressman McFadden then questioned,
"Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve
notes. Is that true?"
Mr. Steagall replied,
"Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes."
Does that sound familiar? Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in the
Congressional Record (Exhibit 39):
"From my observations of the bill as it was read to the House, it would appear that the
amount of bank notes that might be issued by the Federal Reserve System is not limited.
That will depend entirely upon the amount of collateral that is presented from time to time
for exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?"
Who is the collateral? We are chattel, aren't we? We have no rights. Our rights were
suspended along with the Constitution. We became chattel property to the corporate
government, our transactions and obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal
Reserve bank notes.
Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit 40):
"The money will be worth l00 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the
Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people
in the Nation."
It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the Depression. It was needed
to back our monetary system. Our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs... we were
now slaves for the system.
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 41):
"When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent
shall act as agent of the Treasurer of the United States or of the Comptroller of the
currency, or both, for the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the
Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the provisions of this
The Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury. The Treasury holds the assets.
We are the collateral... ourselves and our property.
To summarize briefly: On March 9, 1933 the American people in all their domestic, daily,
and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy. The President of the
United States, through licenses or any other form, was given the power to regulate and
control the actions of enemies. He made We, the People, chattel property; he seized our
gold, our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution. And we know that
current law, to this day, says that all proclamations issued heretofore or hereafter by the
President or the Secretary of the Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress.
Pretty broad, sweeping approval to be automatic, wouldn't you agree?
On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio "Fireside Chat" (Exhibit 42),
makes the following statement:
"The Secretary of the Treasury will issue licenses to banks which are members of the
Federal Reserve system, whether national bank or state, located in each of the 12
Federal Reserve bank cities, to open Monday morning."
It was by this action that the Treasury took over the banking system.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 (Exhibit 42a) in the following
"Presidential Proclamations No. 2039, issued March 6, 1933, and No. 2040, issued March
9, 1933, temporarily suspended banking transactions by member banks of the Federal
Reserve System. Normal banking functions were resumed on March 13, subject to certain
restrictions. The first proclamation, it was held, had no authority in law until the passage
on March 9, 1933, of a ratifying act (12 U.S.C.A. Sect.95b). Anthony v. Bank of Wiggins,
183 Miss. 883, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids member banks of the Federal
Reserve System to transact banking business, except under regulations of the Secretary
of the Treasury, during an emergency proclaimed by the President 12 USCA Sect 95."
Take special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the phrase, "present
law". The fact that banks are under regulation of the Treasury today, is evidence that the
state of emergency still exists, by virtue of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need
any more evidence to prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency.
From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (Exhibit 43):
"To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers and others to
engage in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any
agricultural commodity or product thereof."
This is the seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing authority.
In the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar seizures by
licensing authority were successfully completed by the government over a plethora of
other industries, among them transportation, communications, public utilities, securities,
oil, labor, and all natural resources. The first hundred days of FDR saw the
nationalization of the United States, its people and its assets. What has Bill Clinton talked
about during his campaign and early presidency? His first hundred days.
Now, we know that they took over all contracts, for we have already read in Exhibit 22:
"No contract is considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a
remedy in the courts of law of either government, and they have, in the language of civil
law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."
They have no personal nights at law. Therefore, we should expect that we would see in
the statutes a time when the contract between the, Federal Reserve and We, the People,
in which the Federal Reserve had to give us our gold on demand, was made null and
Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933) (Exhibit 44):
"That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which
purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular- kind of coin
or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby is declared
to be against public policy; and no such policy shall be contained in or made with respect
to any obligation hereafter incurred."
Indeed, our contract with the Federal Reserve was invalidated at the end of Roosevelt's
hundred days. We lost our night to require our gold back from the bank in which we had
Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 45):
"This conference of fifty farm leaders met on March 10, 1933. They agreed on
recommendations for a bill, which were presented to me at the White House on March
11th by a committee of the conference, who requested me to call upon the Congress for
the same broad powers to meet the emergency in agriculture as I had requested for
solving the bank crisis."
What was the "broad powers"? That was the War Powers, wasn't it? And now we see the
farm leaders asking President Roosevelt to use the same War Powers to take control of
the agricultural industry. Well, needless to say, he did. We should wonder about all that
took place at this conference, for it to result in the eventual acquiescence of farm
leadership to the governmental takeover of their livelihoods.
Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency
"That the present acute economic emergency being in part the consequence of a severe
and increasing disparity between the prices of agriculture and other commodities, which
disparity bas largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products,
has broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously impaired the
agricultural assets supporting the national credit structure, it is hereby declared that
these conditions in the basic industry of agriculture have affected transactions in
agricultural commodities with a national public interest, have burdened and obstructed
the normal currents of commerce in such commodities and rendered imperative the
immediate enactment of Title 1 of this act."
Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support the national credit
structure. Did he take the titles of all the land? Remember "Contracts payable in gold!"
President Roosevelt needed the support, and agriculture was critical, because of all the
millions of acres of farmland at that time, and the value of that farmland. The mortgage
on that farmland was what supported the emergency credit. So President Roosevelt had
to do something to stabilize the price of land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create
money, didn't he? So he impressed agriculture into the public interest. The farming
industry was nationalized.
Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 47):
"It is hereby declared to the public policy of Congress ..."
Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):
"But in defining the meaning of the term 'enemies' property,' we will be led into error if we
refer to Fleta or Lord Coke for their definition of the word, 'enemy'. It is a technical phrase
peculiar to prize courts, and depends upon principles of public policy as distinguished
from the common law."
Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution is
abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government, public policy.
All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side. If public
opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, statutes, laws
and bills can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution
is suspended. It has been for 60 years. We're not under law. Law has been abolished.
We're under a system of public policy, (War Powers). So when you go into that courtroom
with your Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you?
He tells you that you have no persona standi in judicio. You have no personal standing at
law. He tells you not to bother bringing the Constitution into his court, because it is not a
Constitutional court, but an executive tribunal operating under a totally different
From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48) (emphasis added):
"Under this procedure we retain Government by law, special, temporary law, perhaps, but
law nonetheless. The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that
can be asserted, and the persons affected may be informed by the statute of their rights
and their duties."
If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they have been
statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if you violate the orders of
those statutes, you will be charged, not with a crime, but with an offense.
Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):
"My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several
grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the
language of that act Is so broad, it would 'justify almost anything."
Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,
"Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has
enlarged the standing rule in favor of the litigant. But I don't think it has reached the
point, presently, that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits."
Senator Church then made the comment:
"What you're saying, then, is that if Congress doesn't act to standardize, restrict, or
eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court
No persona standi n judicio, - no personal standing in the courts.
Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):
"The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in the fact that it created a permanent
agency designed to eradicate an emergency condition in the sphere of agriculture."
These agencies, of which there are now thousands, and which now control every aspect
of our lives, were ostensibly created as temporary agencies meant to last only as long as
the national emergency. They have become, in fact, permanent agencies, as has the
state of national emergency itself. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: "We will never go
back to the old order." That quote takes on a different meaning in light of what we have
seen so far.
In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church:
"If the President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval, our system
is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our
We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the
"Enormous Scope of Powers... A Time Bomb".
Remember, this is Congress' own document, from the year 1973.
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 (Exhibit 52):
"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 (Exhibit 53) 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 and 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 canceled.
Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13 (Exhibit 54):
"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 had 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 (Exhibit 55):
"Furthermore, it would be 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
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.
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 had 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 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement from Senator
"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 (Exhibit 58) written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney
General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on
the question of the termination of the standing national emergency:
"As a consequence, a "national emergency" is now a practical necessity in order to carry
out what has become the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What
were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme
situations, and for the most limited duration's, have become everyday powers, and a
state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition."
From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935) (Exhibit 59):
"A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction
for the support of 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 v. Butler (Exhibit 60):
"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 v. Butler (Exhibit 61):
"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 and
limit 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 v. 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 (Exhibit 62):
"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 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 law.
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 (Exhibit 63):
"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 (Exhibit 64):
"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", a continuation of
"Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt's general policy to
assign new, emergency functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already
Thus, thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies, are now sitting out there with
emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.
Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to the question of "booty".
The following definition of the term, "prize" is to be found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary
"Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between
a prize and booty consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land."
This significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical, a fact which will
become quite clear shortly.
Let us now remember that "Congress shall have the power to make rules on all captures
on the land and the water." To reiterate, captures on the land are booty, and captures on
the water are prize.
Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a
navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress shall have the power to raise
and support an army, but no appropriations of money for that purpose shall be for
greater than two years. Here we can see that an army is not a permanent standing body,
because, in times of peace, armies were held by the sovereign states as militia. So the
United States had a navy during peacetime, but no standing army; we had instead the
individual state militias.
Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to the fact that it
had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war. But in times of peace, there could
be no federal police power over the continental United States, because there was to be
From the report The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to Military Occupation
by Military Forces of the United States, published by order of the Secretary of War in
1902, under the heading entitled The Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War
(Exhibit 66), comes the following quote:
"4. Should the President desire to utilize the services of the Federal courts of the United
States in promoting this purpose or military undertaking, since these courts derive their
jurisdiction from Congress and do not constitute a part of the military establishment, they
must secure from Congress the necessary action to confer such jurisdiction upon said
This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property within the continental
United States on the land (booty), it must obtain statutory authority.
In this same section (Exhibit 66), we find the following words:
"5. The laws and usage's of war make a distinction between enemies' property captured
on the sea and property captured on land. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States over property captured at sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in
the absence of Congressional action."
There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared, Congress must give
jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on the land by positive Congressional
action. To continue with (Exhibit 66):
"The right of confiscation is a sovereign right. In times of peace, the exercise of this right
is limited and controlled by the domestic Constitution and institutions of the government.
In times of war, when the right is exercised against enemies' property as a war measure,
such right becomes a belligerent right, and as such is not subject to the restrictions
imposed by domestic institutions, but is regulated and controlled by the laws and usage's
So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in its sovereign
peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and restrictions
placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its
belligerent capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.
In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act (Exhibit 67):
"That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and
enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to
issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the
provisions of this act."
Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty
jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental United States. And
at the time of the original, unamended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at
war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was
appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were
excluded from the provisions of the original act.
In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law. This
Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come into effect until
6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme Court to Congress. The
Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did not occur until Franklin D.
Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938 (Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).
But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the public enemy
under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act. What jurisdiction were
We, the People, then placed under? We were now the booty jurisdiction given to the
district courts by Congress.
It was no longer be necessary, or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution of the
United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of
common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look at the American
flag in most American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates Admiralty
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 (Exhibit
"Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority vested in the President
by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence of
the national emergencies..."
Later, in the same Executive Order (Exhibit 69), we find the following:
"...under the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Section 5(b) of
the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. (12 U. S. C 95a).
Section 5(b) certainly seems to be a one-sided support for Presidential authority, doesn't
it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back to Exhibit 49, the words of
Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549:
"My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several
grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the
language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything."
The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every American, is
what type of acts can "almost anything" cover? What has been, and is being, done, by
our government under the cloak of authority conferred by Section 5(b) ? By now, I think
we are beginning to know.
Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public Law
94412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we find that Congress had finally finished their
exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that
they would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to heave a
sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will
come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won't it? But yet
we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that
power, once grasped, is difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when
we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), the following words:
"(a): The provisions of this act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the
powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5(b)
of the Act of October 6,1917, as amended (12 U. S. C 95a; 50 U. S. C. App. 5b)"
The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all. The alarming situation in which
We, the People, find ourselves today causes us to think back to a time over two hundred
years ago in our nation's history when our forefathers were also laboring under the
burden of governmental usurpation of individual rights. Their response, written in 1774,
two years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the attempts of Great
Britain to retain extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as
the "Declaration of Rights" (Exhibit 72). And in that document, we find these words:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right
to bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts
expressly imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for
the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these
colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and
extended the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties,
but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."
We can see now that we have come full circle to the situation which existed in 1774, but
with one crucial difference. In 1774, Americans were protesting against a colonial power
which sought to bind and control its colony by wartime powers in a time of peace. In 1994,
it is our own government which has sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people
by the same subtle, insidious method.
Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in
adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on
Confession in open Court."
Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? That would be for the common law courts to decide.
At this point in our nation's history, the point is moot, for common law, and indeed the
Constitution itself, do not operate or exist at present. Whether governmental acts of theft
of the nation's money, the citizens' property, and American liberty as an ideal and a
reality which have occurred since 1933 is treason against the people of the United
States, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the United States cannot even be
determined or argued in the legal sense until the Constitution itself is reestablished. For
our part, however, we firmly believe that, "by their fruits ye shall know them", and on that
authority we rest our case.
END OF REPORT
As you have just witnessed, the United States of America continues to exist in a
governmentally ordained state of national emergency. Under such a state of emergency,
our Constitution has been set aside, ostensibly for the public good, until the emergency
But, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public's good that our
government has used its unrestricted power, unhampered by the Constitution's
restraining force. The governmental edicts and actions over the past six decades have
led us to the desperate state in which we find ourselves today. Besieged on every side,
corroding from within, frightened and in despair, we as a nation are being torn asunder.
There is a national emergency today, one of life and death proportions, but it is not the
emergency used by our government to continue its abuse of power. It is this very abuse,
this unbridled rape of the American spirit, that is the crux of the emergency we are in
today. But this true emergency cannot be cured by setting aside the Constitution; no, it
can only be controlled by returning to the laws of God and Country which have been
stolen from us by those in whom we placed our trust to protect the national interest.
We are a nation whose government is based upon those immortal words, "a government
of the people, by the people, for the people". One has only to walk down the highways
and byways of this great land to know all too well that this is not a government of the
people or for the people. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions taken over
the past decades have resulted in an unparalleled decline of American economic and
political power, and a weakening of American values and spirit.
This is not a crisis in which the taking up of arms is the answer. No, this is a situation in
which we firmly believe that the pen will be mightier than the sword. That a state of
emergency exists cannot be disputed. That the emergency is one which should concern
every American alive cannot be denied. That we must stand together, laying aside our
individual differences, to fight the common foe, is of vital importance, for the time to act is
now. But this is not a battle of swords, but of knowledge, for only when the deception is
exposed to the light of day can the healing process begin.
Truth stands tall in the light of day, and it is the truth we bring to you today. Let it be
known and understood that it is our intention to make this information available to every
concerned American who desires to know the true State of the Union. This is an
undertaking of immense proportions, but we have dedicated ourselves to bringing this
information to the light of day, and with the help of "We, the People", we will be successful
in our efforts.
Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to call themselves American must also
accept the responsibility that comes with that title. We the People have not only a right,
but a responsibility to each other and to those who have gone before us to learn what
our government is doing, and to judge whether actions taken benefit the people who will
bear the costs. We have been in the dark long enough, content to rest on our past
glories and let the government take its course. In a way, we have been like children,
trusting in our parents to act in our best interest. But as we have too frequently seen in
the nightly news, not all parents have their children's best interest at heart.
The time has come for us to take off our blinders and accept reality, for the time of
national reckoning has arrived. The majority of our elected and appointed officials are no
more responsible for the current state of affairs than are we. The strings are being
manipulated at far higher levels than the positions most officials occupy. They are
working with little knowledge or authority, trying to control problems far bigger than even
they realize. Their programs and actions may seek to cure the symptoms, but the time
has now come to attack the disease. They are no more guilty than we are, nor will they
be any more protected when the nation collapses on us all.
If we blame them for this national emergency, we must also truly blame ourselves, for it is
"We the People" to whom this nation was given and whose duty it was to keep a watchful
eye on those who direct the sails of the ship of state. We have, however, fallen asleep,
and while we were dreaming the American dream, a band of pirates stole the Constitution
and put our people into slavery.
And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not one President or
Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able or willing to return it to its
rightful owners. Given the current state of the union, there is no reason to expect this
situation to change unless we ourselves cause it to be so.
Let us put the childish emotions of pity and self-deception away, stand up, stand together
and fight back. Now is the time to stop dreaming, and start the long work before us. Now
is the time to turn back to the principles and ideals on which this nation was founded, the
strong foundation from which our national identity springs.
When does tolerance become anarchy? When does protection become slavery? When is
enough enough? Now is when - here and now.
Now is the time to return to the laws set forth by God, and throw off these chains of
ignorance and bondage which grip our nation to the point of death. Let us return to the
source, the standard of excellence set for us long ago. Our message to Congress and all
elected and appointed officials must be, "Let my people go!", for we are all laboring
under a system which will eventually crush us, regardless of our religion, our sex, or the
color of our skin.
We must let those at all levels of governmental authority know that we have learned of
the deception which lies at the core of our national malaise. We must tell them in no
uncertain terms that we will tolerate this great lie no longer, and we must put them on
notice that we expect them to resign if they have not the courage and the resolve to help
this nation in its hour of need.
We have been fools long enough. No matter how long after the date you read this report,
start each and every week without fail to give a copy of this information to at least one
person you know. We also ask you to write a letter to Congress telling them to "Let our
People go", or you can use the form letter you will find enclosed in the report.
We must let our elected officials know that we expect them as servants of the people to
help us reestablish law and order and restore our national pride. They must, repeal
proclamation 2039, 2040, and Title 12 USC 95(a) and 95(b), thereby canceling the
National Emergency, and reestablish the Constitution of this nation.
Now is the time for excellence of action. We demand it and will accept nothing less. This
is our country, to protect and defend, no matter the cost. To do nothing out of fear or
apathy is exactly what those in power are hoping for, for it is ignorance and apathy that
the darkness likes best. We must not be a party to the darkness enveloping our nation
any longer. We must come into the light, and give our every drop of blood, sweat and
tears to bring our nation back with us.
We must acknowledge that if we do nothing, if we are not willing to act now and act boldly,
without fear but with faith and a firm resolve, our freedom to act, at all may soon be taken
away altogether. New bills, new laws are being presented dally which will effectively serve
to tighten the chains of bondage already encircling this nation.
My friends, we are not going into slavery, we are already there. Make no mistake those in
power are already tightening the chains, but they are doing so slowly, quietly and with
great caution, for fear of awakening the slumbering lion which is the voice of the
American people. There is yet still time for us to slip loose the chains which bind us, and
for us to bring about the restoration of this nation.
If we act, if we make our concerns known and shout out our refusal to accept the future
which has been planned for us by those who hold no allegiance to this great land of ours,
we can yet demand and see come to pass the day when the state of emergency is
canceled and the Constitution is restored to her rightful place as the watchdog of those
for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we repent of our ignorance and our
apathy, and return to the God-given laws on which this nation was founded, we may yet
We will continue to hold meetings and offer this information until everyone in America has
had an opportunity to hear it and we have set our nation free. We will not tolerate less.
We are Americans and that means far more than most of us realize.
If it first it seems you are working alone, do not give up, for as this information spreads
across the land to the great cities and small towns, you will find yourself in excellent
company. You already are as only one, for behind you stand all the heroes of our history
who fought and died to keep this nation free.
Again, we must stress that we are not asking you to pick up guns; in fact, we implore you
not to, no matter how angry the news of this deception has made you. Turn your anger
into a steely resolve, a fierce determination not to give up until the battle has been won.
We are not asking you for lots of money; that's their game, the "almighty dollar". It is the
substitution of wealth and possessions for integrity and honor that helped get us into this
true state of emergency in which we find ourselves now. We are not asking you for more
time than you can give, although we do ask you to give what time you can to get this
What we ask from you is your commitment to stand with those around you to help us
restore this nation to her rightful place in history, both that written and that yet to be told.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the Courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert
the Constitution". We must stand together now in this, our national hour of need. As the
United States Supreme Court once said, "It is not the function of our government to keep
the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government
from falling into error".
Each individual, their attitudes and actions, forges their own special link in the great chain
of history. Now is the time to add to that precious inheritance of honor and duty which has
kept America alive because the choices we make and the actions we take today are a
part of history as well as our future.
The vision for America has not died; the "land of the free and the home of the brave" still
exists. There is still time to turn the tide for this great land, but we must join together to
make it happen. We have a debt of honor to the past and the future, a call to glory to
rescue out homeland from the hands of those who would see her fall. We cannot, we
must not fail
EMERGENCY & WAR POWERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Table of Contents 1
2 National Emergency 3
1933 Congressman Beck on the doctrine of emergency 3
Since 9 Mar 33, US in State of Declared National Emergency 4
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus 4
The 5th Amendment 5
The powers to suspend the Constitution 5
Congress makes the President a dictator (12 USC 95 (b)) 5
Roosevelt requests emergency declared to suspend the Constitution 6
The rule of necessity overrides the law 6
Trading with Enemy Act (excludes US Citizens) 7
Trading with Enemy Act (now includes US Citizens) 7
Contracts not valid between enemies 9
Law of prize 9
No intercourse can be conducted without a license 9
Ultimate ownership of all property is the state, not individuals 10
Seizure of property without just compensation 10
Federal Reserve declares national emergency 12
Roosevelt declares holiday by Executive Order to keep banks closed 13
The gold is taken out of the country 13
Everyone is ordered to turn in their gold 14
Federal Reserve Notes are issued 15
Dictatorship over finance in the US 15
Citizens are now collateral backing the Federal Reserve Notes 16
Seizure of agricultural industry by means of license authority 16
Farm leasers ask Roosevelt to take control of agriculture industry 17
During emergency, Common Law & Constitution is abolished 18
Statutory Law and no personal standing in the courts 19
Abraham Lincoln was a Constitutional Dictator first 6 weeks 19
No President has been willing to suspend the proclamation 21
Tax is only for support of government 21
Supreme Court declares Act as Unconstitutional 21
Roosevelt stacks court and reverses Supreme Court decision 21
Roosevelt takes political jurisdiction away from the courts 21
The question of booty 22
Congress abolishes Common Law 23
American people declared public enemy 23
Gold fringe around the flag designates Admiralty Jurisdiction 23
Treason defined 24