NEWS & COMMENTARY Obama issues executive order that would allow confiscation of private property and virtually unlimited control of resources and the means of production



Within the last three months the Federal government has moved to allow the confiscation of virtually all private property in the United States, the nationalization of entire industries and the indefinite detention of American citizens. All it would take for such martial law to be imposed is for the determination to be made/claimed that the national security requires it.



At the March 15, 2012 Beaufort Patriot TEA Party meeting, National Director of the Patriot's Coalition, Jeff Lewis, explained the intricacies of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Several section of that act provide for "indefinite detention" and the application of the Laws of War, as opposed to the state and national constitutions to enemy combatants.



As Mr. Lewis explained, the provisions included in the NDAA at first glance appear to be intended to deal with terrorists, and not American citizens. But the question becomes: Who/what is a terrorist?



Section 1031 of the NDAA defines who can be detained by the military without benefit of a trail or other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This definition includes: " any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."



The legislation goes on to provide various options for dealing with the individuals arrested pursuant to the authority provided to the President. It states:



"(c) Disposition under law of war.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:



(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.



(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 11184)).



(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.



(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."



There is wording in the NDAA that seems to suggest that these provisions do not apply to U. S. Citizens or "lawful resident aliens." However, that provision only applies to the section that requires the military to detain those people. As constitutional scholar Michael Connelly, writing "The decision of whether an American citizen can be detained indefinitely, without being formally charged, or tried, is, therefore, left in the hands of one person, the President of the United States."



Now, if that does not cause you any concern you should read the Executive Order entitled National Defense Resources Preparedness issued last Friday (3-16-12) by President Obama.



to read the Order. Don't miss Section 804 (c).



Moreover, Section 501 provides that if you have "recognized expertise" you can be compelled to go to work with the Federal government, or more specifically with the "National Defense Executive Reserve" (NDER). Students of history will recall that this forced labor corps is very similar to what Stalin did in the Soviet Union and Mao did in Communist China.



As you see, the Order gives the Federal government the authority to do just about anything it wants to do in relation to private property and resources if it claims that its actions are warranted as necessary for national security or respond to a peacetime national emergency. Would that include a national strike? In other words, this Executive Order appears to be all that is necessary for the President to order the nationalization of virtually any industry or resource, including forced labor. For another interpretation of the Order,



The Fifth Amendment provides that the Federal government cannot confiscate private property without just compensation nor deprive anyone " of life, liberty or property without due process of law " and the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state may deprive any person of due process of law. So we challenge you to read this Executive Order, remember that it applies not only in time of war, but as it says in Section 102 in peacetime, and tell us whether Barack Obama is violating the U. S. Constitution with this order.



As of today (3-18-12) there are 232 days before Election Day. Within the last three months the Federal government has moved to allow the confiscation of virtually all private property in the United States, the nationalization of entire industries and the indefinite detention of American citizens. All it would take for such martial law to be imposed is for the determination to be made/claimed that the national security requires it.At the March 15, 2012 Beaufort Patriot TEA Party meeting, National Director of the Patriot's Coalition, Jeff Lewis, explained the intricacies of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Several section of that act provide for "indefinite detention" and the application of the, as opposed to the state and national constitutions to enemy combatants.As Mr. Lewis explained, the provisions included in the NDAA at first glance appear to be intended to deal with terrorists, and not American citizens. But the question becomes: Who/what is a terrorist?Section 1031 of the NDAA defines who can be detained by the military without benefit of a trail or other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This definition includes:There is wording in the NDAA that seems to suggest that these provisions do not apply to U. S. Citizens or "lawful resident aliens." However, that provision only applies to the section thatAs constitutional scholar Michael Connelly, writing here explains:Now, if that does not cause you any concern you should read the Executive Order entitledissued last Friday (3-16-12) by President Obama. Click here to read the Order. Don't miss Section 804 (c).Moreover, Section 501 provides that if you have "recognized expertise" you can be compelled to go to work with the Federal government, or more specifically with the "National Defense Executive Reserve" (NDER). Students of history will recall that this forced labor corps is very similar to what Stalin did in the Soviet Union and Mao did in Communist China.As you see, the Order gives the Federal government the authority to do just about anything it wants to do in relation to private property and resources if it claims that its actions are warranted as necessary for national security or respond to a peacetime national emergency. Would that include a national strike? In other words, this Executive Order appears to be all that is necessary for the President to order the nationalization of virtually any industry or resource, including forced labor. For another interpretation of the Order, click here. The Fifth Amendment provides that the Federal government cannot confiscate private property without just compensation nor deprive anyone " of life, liberty or property without due process of law " and the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state may deprive any person of due process of law. So we challenge you to read this Executive Order, remember that it applies not only in time of war, but as it says in Section 102 in peacetime, and tell us whether Barack Obama is violating the U. S. Constitution with this order.As of today (3-18-12) there are 232 days before Election Day.





There are reports already that this action by Obama is nothing to be concerned about. However, the best argument we have seen to support this position uses an irrational approach of saying that it does no more than some other executive orders issued by other presidents.



The absurdity of this reasoning would be analogous to Bashar al-Assad justifying his actions by saying they are no worse than what Hitler did at Auschwitz.



Interestingly, we have not seen anyone make this argument and take it back to the Roosevelt Administration when Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese-Americans (thousands of whom were natural born American citizens who had never even been to Japan.) But the government interned them in camps for no other reason than their ethnic background caused some to believe they were a threat to national security. So we know for a fact what "protecting national security" can lead to.



We don't think that is relevant. The earlier executive orders were different, if for no other reason than they did not fit into a series of unconstitutional or extra-constitutional actions since 9-11. It gives us absolutely no comfort at all to say that "Bush did it too." That is an absurd argument i.e., two wrongs make it right.



We suggest you simply read the Obama March 15 order and apply a rational test of "what does it say?" The proper interpretation is to examine the plain meaning of the words within the four corners of the document. Then decide for yourself.



But if you wish to interpret it in context, do a survey of the number of incidents where this President has ignored the Constitution and then tell us there is nothing to worry about.



Then if we want to have a rational discussion of this document we should begin with the issue of jurisdiction. The really troubling thing about this order is that it masterfully crafts a way to avoid the civilian Federal court system. First-year law students know that the threshold issue in nearly every case is whether court has jurisdiction over the matter presented by the parties. In this instance jurisdiction is assigned to the military. The president is Commander-in-Chief. There is no recognized judicial review.



Addendum:There are reports already that this action by Obama is nothing to be concerned about. However, the best argument we have seen to support this position uses an irrational approach of saying that it does no more than some other executive orders issued by other presidents. Click here for an example.The absurdity of this reasoning would be analogous to Bashar al-Assad justifying his actions by saying they are no worse than what Hitler did at Auschwitz.Interestingly, we have not seen anyone make this argument and take it back to the Roosevelt Administration when Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese-Americans (thousands of whom were natural born American citizens who had never even been to Japan.) But the government interned them in camps for no other reason than their ethnic background caused some to believe they were a threat to national security. So we know for a fact what "protecting national security" can lead to.We don't think that is relevant. The earlier executive orders were different, if for no other reason than they did not fit into a series of unconstitutional or extra-constitutional actions since 9-11. It gives us absolutely no comfort at all to say that "Bush did it too." That is an absurd argument i.e., two wrongs make it right.We suggest you simply read the Obama March 15 order and apply a rational test of "what does it say?" The proper interpretation is to examine the plain meaning of the words within the four corners of the document. Then decide for yourself.But if you wish to interpret it in context, do a survey of the number of incidents where this President has ignored the Constitution and then tell us there is nothing to worry about.Then if we want to have a rational discussion of this document we should begin with the issue of jurisdiction. The really troubling thing about this order is that it masterfully crafts a way to avoid the civilian Federal court system. First-year law students know that the threshold issue in nearly every case is whether court has jurisdiction over the matter presented by the parties. In this instance jurisdiction is assigned to the military. The president is Commander-in-Chief. There is no recognized judicial review. Print Email Comment Share