Coalition of Patriot Groups Unite to Oppose NDAA

The Intolerable Acts was the name used by American colonists to describe a series of oppressive measures passed by the British Parliament in 1774 relating to the amount of self-government permissible in the American colonies. The acts sparked outrage and firm resistance to the tyrannical regime of King George III throughout the 13 colonies. These arbitrary violations of the rights of the colonists — rights enjoyed by all Englishmen — resulted in the convening of the First Continental Congress in order to organize a formal denouncement of the decrees and to unite the Americans in their resistance to the Crown. Despite various attempts by several delegates to reconcile with Britain, independence was declared within two years and the American War for Independence raged until liberty was achieved in 1783.

Patriot Coalition & Oath Keepers

Legal Teams Join Forces to Educate U.S. Citizenry

About "Intolerable Acts"

NDAA Resolutions

NDAA RESOLUTIONS FOR STATE LEGISLATORS

Colorado  Florida   Illinois  Kansas

Oklahoma  Pennsylvania  New York  North Carolina

NDAA SHERIFF RESOLUTION

NDAA-SHERIFF-RESOLUTION (detailed version)

NDAA-SHERIFF-RESOLUTION (abbreviated version)

NOTE from Patriot Coalition National Director Jeff Lewis & Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes:

The below draft resolution was prepared by Mr. Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers (oathkeepers.org) a Yale Law Graduate who specializes in the application of military law to civilians, and Mr. Richard D. Fry, a constitutional law attorney and General Council for Patriot Coalition (patriotcoalition.com).

Legislators who choose to endorse or adopt this (Patriot Coalition / Oath Keepers) “P.C./O.K. NDAA RESOLUTION” are requested to notify Stewart and Richard of your intent, and to identify it as such in any accompanying public statements or press releases.

We have also prepared a tutorial video which explains, clause by clause, the contents of this resolution, which can be viewed at the Patriot Coalition’s Livestream Channel here: http://livestream.com/WRCG. (See: NDAA State Resolution) If you have any questions, Stewart Rhodes can be reached at 702-353-0627 or by email at stewart.rhodes@oathkeepers.org, and Richard D. Fry can be reached at 816-853-8718 or by email at richard@patriotcoalition.com. Stewart and/or Richard would be happy to join you by telephone or by Skype. I can be reached at: 252-876-9489, or at: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com.

“…I am committed against every thing which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy [the Constitution]… and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the Government itself…”   -Daniel Webster

__________________

RESOLUTION OF THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE
STANDING IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 WHICH AUTHORIZE MILITARY DETENTION AND TRIAL OF U.S. CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENTS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.

WHEREAS, on Dec. 15, 2011, on the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the United States Senate passed the Conference Report to House of Representative bill H.R. 1540, the "NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA),"

WHEREAS, on Dec. 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Conference Report to House of Representative Bill H.R. 1540, the NDAA, into law,

WHEREAS, the NDAA contains provisions repugnant to, and destructive of, the constitutions and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, and this state,

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state are infringed and/or usurped by provisions in the NDAA which authorize the application of: military force (including assassination), indefinite military detention without trial, military trial, and rendition to foreign countries and entities of any person, including American citizens and lawful resident aliens, at the discretion of the President or a subordinate within the Department of Defense,

Fundamental Rights of All U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens

“In matters of power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” 

- Thomas Jefferson

WHEREAS, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states:

“W E THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

WHEREAS, the Preamble to the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma declares:

"Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, to ordain and establish this Constitution,"

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states:

"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."

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-10, states:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended by the authorities of this State.”

WHEREAS, there has been no Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Congress, purporting to authorize detention without Grand Jury Indictment for such time as Congress has specified during a “Rebellion,” or an “Invasion.”

WHEREAS, instead of Suspending Habeas Corpus, Congress has unconstitutionally authorized indefinite military detention, under the “law of war,” of persons, including United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, a power nowhere granted to government within the United States Constitution,

WHEREAS, U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, states:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 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.”

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-16, Treason, states:

“Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it or in adhering to its 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.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article III, Section 3 together clearly and plainly set forth what manner of trial must be used against a United States Citizen or lawful resident who is alleged to have waged war against the United States or to have aided the enemy in wartime, requiring a trial by a jury of their peers, in an Article III, civilian court, for the crime of Treason, with the extra evidentiary burden of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court,

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the NDAA directly violates Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution by authorizing military trial, before a military commission, of American citizens and lawful residents accused of levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, which are the elements of the crime of treason as defined in Article III, Section 3, “levying war against [the United States] or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort…” thus denying United States citizens and lawful resident aliens their right to a trial by jury and also denying them the additional evidentiary protections of Article III, Section 3, such as the requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court before they can be found guilty, by a jury of their peers, of having levied war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, which constitute the crime of treason,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-30, Unreasonable searches or seizures - Warrants, issuance of, states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.”

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c) (1) of the NDAA, directly violates the right of the people against unreasonable seizure by allowing them to be snatched up (kidnapped) by the United States military, on the say so of the military itself, and taken to a military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to some other location, to be held in “(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” or, under Section 1021(c) (4) to be turned over to the custody or control of “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity,” all of which are the epitome of an unreasonable seizure, as the American people are thereby treated exactly the same as any person captured on a foreign battlefield (such as Iraq or Afghanistan), where anyone who is suspected of being an unlawful belligerent in the war on terrorism, or of aiding belligerents, is simply picked up by the military and taken away to wherever the U.S. military sees fit, with no involvement whatsoever by the civilian courts. A government which does the above to its own people is consistent with the behavior of every despotic and totalitarian regime in world history.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment states:

"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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," (emphasis added)

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-7, DUE PROCESS OF LAW states:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis added)

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c) (1) of the NDAA, directly violates the 5th Amendment by authorizing United States citizens and lawful residents to be held in military detention ”under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” including holding them to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime – violations of the laws of war – and authorizing the initiation of military trial for those offenses without presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

WHEREAS, claiming authority under the laws of war and the AUMF, President Barack Obama has, on his direction alone, targeted U.S. citizens for killing by the U.S. military, and has in fact ordered the successful killing of several U.S. citizens, based on secret evidence, pursuant to a secret criteria for deciding such targeting, while refusing to present any evidence whatsoever, and while proclaiming the intent to target other U.S. citizens for such extra-judicial, extra-constitutional killing with no due process whatsoever before placing U.S. citizens on a secret assassination list, and depriving them of their lives without due process of law, directly in violation of the Fifth Amendment, all under the fiction that he can treat Americans like foreign enemy soldiers during war and simply kill them on sight.

Again, such a claimed power to arbitrarily kill its own citizens, on the mere say-so of “the Leader” is the hallmark of every despotic and totalitarian regime in world history. Under our Constitution, a citizen or lawful resident must be tried for treason and found guilty by a jury of his peers before being executed. Summary execution at the discretion of the President is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

WHEREAS, by enacting the NDAA, and thus affirming the power of the President to use military force against any person – including U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens - that “he determines” are part of the enemy or has aided the enemy in the “war on terror,” with the full knowledge that the current President has engaged in assassination of U.S. citizens, Congress has knowingly authorized the continuation of President Barack Obama’s program of extra-judicial killing of Americans who he has placed on his secret hit list, pursuant to secret evidence that he will not present to any court. Congress has thus given its assent to the President to hold the power of life and death over all persons within the United States, as if he were a Roman emperor, or as if he were Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Pol Pot, or Papa Doc.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 6th Amendment states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c)(2) of the NDAA directly violates the clear mandates of the 6th Amendment by authorizing United States citizens and lawful residents to be tried before a military commission “under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–4 84)), for supposed crimes against the “law of war,” rather than before a jury of their peers, and further violates the 6th Amendment by authorizing such trial outside of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, to include transporting them beyond seas for pretended offenses against the “law of war” (such as not bearing arms openly, not wearing a uniform or an insignia recognizable at a distance, or not serving under an established chain of command – all of which are absurd to apply to an American civilian in civilian life), and without the 6th Amendment guarantee of the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 8th Amendment states:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-9 states:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.”

WHEREAS, the NDAA, in direct violation of the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, authorizes “cruel and unusual punishments” in the form of “indefinite detentions,” and the transfer of American citizens and lawful residents to “foreign nations,” and/or unnamed foreign “entities” for unspecified purposes, and for trial and punishment for pretend offenses against the “law of war,” which can result in the absurdity of Americans suffering the punishment of being executed because they do not wear an insignia recognizable at a distance in their daily lives as civilians, or because they carry a handgun concealed as millions of Americans legally do in daily life, or because they are not subject to an established chain of command, all of which are perfectly legal under the laws of the United States and are only “crimes” under the international “law of war” as applied to a foreign enemy, which has no jurisdiction over Americans who are not in the Armed Forces of the United States,

WHEREAS, the punishment of being arbitrarily killed by a Hellfire Missile fired from a Predator drone, after the President “determines” – based on secret evidence and secret criteria - that a U.S. citizen or lawful resident alien is guilty of levying war against the United States or aiding its enemies, or is guilty of pretend violations of the “law of war,” is truly cruel and unusual (at least for now), and thus violates the 8th Amendment,

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands …may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

-James Madison, Federalist 47

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1 states,

"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Requirements of Oaths of Office to Protect the Constitution and U.S. Citizens

WHEREAS, our oath of office creates an active duty, not a passive duty,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 states,

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Constitution, SECTION XV-1 states:

“All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will not, knowingly, receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing, for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law; I further swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as _________ to the best of my ability."

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 8 states:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

WHEREAS, enlisted members of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

WHEREAS, commissioned officers of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous [NDAA is 1844 pages] that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.”   - -James Madison

WHEREAS, the execution of parts of the NDAA may require members of the armed forces to violate their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,

WHEREAS, we believe the NDAA unconstitutionally infringes upon the fundamental rights of all persons, including U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens of our Constitutional Republic, as noted above, and has other flaws, as noted below:

1.  The NDAA is deceptive in that it purports to merely “Affirm” the authority granted the President under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as signed into law on September 18, 2001, when in fact, it does expand the temporal scope and the entities to whom that act applies, which can be targeted under the AUMF.
(See Subtitle D—Counterterrorism, SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE),

2.  The NDAA of 2012 is deceptive in that, while it purports to not expand or limit the authority given the President under the subject AUMF, or the scope of the subject AUMF, it does in fact expand both in the following ways:

a.  it expands the entities that could be targeted beyond those noted in the AUMF, and for a different time period (See §1021 (b)(2) “A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” (Emphasis added),

b.  it expands the powers of the President that can be applied to “covered persons” by enumerating for the first time, the power of indefinite military detention under the “law of war” without trial, trial by military commission, and extraordinary rendition to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
(See §1021(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force), (See note 1)

3. The NDAA is deceptive in that it purports it does not affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens et.al, when in fact:

a.  Congress could not agree on what the existing “law or authorities” were,

b. the NDAA does expand the entities and actions to which the AUMF applies,

c.  the provision of the NDAA will result in a different law being applied to “United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,” i.e., the “law of war,” (See Section 1021(e))

d. there are general provisions in the NDAA which purport to limit its application that are inconsistent with specific provisions in the NDAA that expand the AUMF. A court, in interpreting the NDAA, will most likely interpret the subject-limiting provision to read “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities… [except as otherwise provide in this section].”
(See §1021(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.), (See Note 2.)

e. the intent and purpose of the NDAA, as expressed by Senator Lindsey Graham on the Senate floor, is to create the legal fiction that the United States of America is a “battlefield,” thus providing justification for the unconstitutional application of the “law of war” to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens who are not serving in the U.S. armed forces,”

4. The NDAA is deceptive in that Section 1021 expands the authority of the 2001 AUMF, while asserting it does not expand the authority granted under the 2001 AUMF. Congress is pretending that it granted all of these newly listed powers in the 2001 AUMF, when in fact the original authorization makes no mention of the power to use military detention, military trial, or extraordinary rendition. This legalistic, sophistic, “time travelling” deception allows Congress to greatly expand the written scope of its AUMF, including adding, for the first time, written authorization to use military detention without trial, military trial, and even extraordinary rendition to foreign countries and unnamed foreign entities, to include against U.S. citizens and lawful residents, while telling the American people that nothing has changed. Such legalistic “time travel” is the height of deception.

WHEREAS, it is deceptive for the NDAA to assert it does not affect existing law or authorities in that: 1) there was no agreement within Congress as to what is the existing law on the relevant subject, 2) the “authorities“ on the subject issue are unclear at best, 3) provisions within Subtitle D of the NDAA do result in a different law, the “law of war,” being applied to “United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States…” outside the protections of civilian law pursuant to Article III and the Bill of Rights. 4) due to the fact there are general limiting provisions in the NDAA which are inconsistent with specific expanding provisions in the NDAA, a court, in interpreting the NDAA, will most likely interpret the general-limiting provisions to read “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities…except as otherwise provided in this section,” (See Section 1021(e)) (See Note 2.)

WHEREAS, the NDAA would subject United States citizens and lawful resident aliens to “transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity….”, which would violate the duty of allegiance owed to such persons by the United States of America as well as certain of their fundamental freedoms,

WHEREAS, the supporters of the NDAA have said the NDAA will have the effect, and we believe it will have the effect, of allowing the President to treat the United States of America as if it was a “battlefield,” placing it under the “law of war,” and its citizens as if they were foreign enemies on a foreign “battlefield” subjecting them to the “law of war” and martial law, exactly like the people of occupied Iraq and Afghanistan are treated,

WHEREAS, granting the President the authority he would have over a foreign “battlefield,” for use against the American people, is unconstitutional and a violation of the federal government’s duty of allegiance to protect U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens,

WHEREAS, as the NDAA contains deceptive language in that it misrepresents what it does and it uses vague and ambiguous terms, usurps the Constitution, and sets the stage for the acceleration of a long train of abuses of the American people and their fundamental rights,

WHEREAS, no law is enforceable save those which are consistent with the “unalienable rights” given to all men by God, as declared in the Declaration of Independence and acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution,

WHEREAS, the above noted injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states, are nearly identical to many of the long train of abuses and usurpations that compelled our forefathers to take up arms and to separate from Great Britain, as enumerated in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, of July 4, 1776:

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:”

“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences”

“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering  fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:”

“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.”

WHEREAS, the similarities to our current circumstances are both shocking and obvious, with
Congress and the President presuming to: affect the military independent of and superior to the civil
power; subjecting us to a jurisdiction – the “law of war” – foreign to our Constitution and
unacknowledged by our laws (with the Constitution being the supreme law of the land); depriving us of
trial by jury; claiming a power to transport us beyond Seas for indefinite detention without trial, for
rendition to foreign countries or entities, or to be tried for pretend offenses against the international “law of war;” taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government by claiming that the "law of war" trumps our Constitution and Bill of Rights; and declaring themselves vested with the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

By doing so, Congress and President Obama, just as with Parliament and King George before them, are abdicating government here by declaring us out of the Protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and waging War against us, under the international law of war, as if we were a foreign enemy people.

WHEREAS, “Any person having knowledge of any treasonable project is bound to disclose it to the President, or to a United States judge, or to a Governor of a State or a State judge, or he is guilty of misprision of treason, and may be fined one thousand dollars and imprisoned for seven years.” (Treatise on Law of the American Rebellion, page 20, Gard. Inst., 326; 1 U.S. St. L. 112, 119.)

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
For the above and forgoing reasons, this Legislature expresses its belief that the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person, including citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States not in the military forces, and over citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States, who are not in the military forces, anywhere in the world.

FURTHER, the Legislature expresses its sense that all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and are not enforceable in this state, and it is the express policy of state’s Legislature that no officer, employee, or agent of the state will implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and employment agreement, and will subject them to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

FURTHER, the Legislature recognizes its duty to interpose itself between unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government or its agents and the people of this state, as well as the duty to defend the unalienable natural rights of the people, all of which is consistent with the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and with our oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

FURTHER, the Legislature directs the Congressional delegation of this state to commence immediately efforts to repeal the unconstitutional sections of the NDAA, to-wit, sections 1021 and 1022, and any other section or provision which will have the same or substantially the same effect on the United States, its citizens, and lawful resident aliens.

FURTHER, the Legislature directs the Congressional delegation to introduce, support, and secure the passage of legislation which clearly states that Congress not only does not authorize, but in fact prohibits the use of military force, military detention, military trial, rendition, or any other power of the “law of war” against U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, within ten (10) days from the passage hereof, a certified copy of this resolution shall be mailed, via certified mail with a return receipt, to each and every member of this state’s Congressional delegation by the [whomever it's their responsibility to send such documents], and, in compliance with federal law regarding acts of "misprision of treason," (page 20, Gard. Inst., 326; 1 U.S. St. L. 112, 119.), to the governor and Supreme Court Chief Justice of this state to effect notification of a possible “conspiracy against the United States,” to wit: the attempt by Congress and the President to arbitrarily and indefinitely suspend of the Bill of Rights outside the requirement of an invasion or rebellion as required by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, which states: “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.,” and by subjecting the American people to the “law of war,” including military force, detention, and trial, and/or the institution of martial law, rather than under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the detention and trial requirements of U.S. Constitution, Article III, and of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Legislature, recognizing its oath-bound duty to defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, to secure the people’s unalienable natural rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” as alliterated in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, adopts this resolution, this _______day of ___________, 2012.

NOTES

1.  Section 1021(d) CONSTRUCTION is meaningless for two reasons.

First, in construing a statute the law gives a preference to a specific provision over a general provision, especially if they are in apparent conflict. Section 1021(d), a general limiting provision, is in conflict with Section 1021(b)(2) a specific provision, which expands the temporal scope and entities covered. Section1021(b)(2), the specific provision also conflicts with Section 1021(a). The specific provision stands.

Second, the court is required to construe a law so that all its provisions are given some meaning and that they are all consistent with each other if at all possible. Under this rule, a court would construe the general limiting provision to read (or mean):
“Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force [unless otherwise expressed herein].”

As (b)(2) is expressed within the law it is consistent with the meaning of the limiting provision of 1021(d).
The courts assume that the laws are written by honest people who are trying to clearly convey their thoughts and purposes. They do not assume they are written by persons who are trying to trick or deceive the public by chicanery.

2.  Section 1021(d) and (e) are meaningless, and or useless, and likely have the opposite effect of what they represented they were trying to convey.

First, the proponents (Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) and the opponents (Senators Feinstein and Durbin) could not agree on what was the current law. Each side cited the same cases to support their respective positions. One side or the other was wrong, and as to that side, these provisions do no good.

Note that Section 1021(e) uses the term “capture” in contrast to “arrest.” This clearly indicates the bill anticipates the use of military custody. Generally, the military only has authority to take a person into “custody” if such person is subject to the “law of war,” such as a foreign enemy in wartime on a foreign battlefield (or is a member of the U.S. armed forces). Also, note the law presumes Congress knows the laws. So like subsection 1021(d), to the extent this provision specifically changes the “existing law,” that change will very likely stand.

In essence, what the NDAA accomplishes is applying a legal fiction to the United States that it is a “battlefield,” under the authority of the military, and under the “law of war.” Battlefields are under the authority of the military and under the “law of war.” As we know, if our house catches fire, the fire department will kick in our door and put out the fire. Due to the immediate emergency they will not get a court order or even ask your permission. What the NDAA does is declares everyone’s house is on fire. This is of course unconstitutional.

Even if the United States were a battlefield, such as during “Rebellion or Invasion,” the “law of war” still cannot be applied to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens. The constitutional emergency powers are: calling forth the militia, suspension of Habeas Corpus by Congress, and jury trial for treason, in accordance with Article III.

REFERENCES AND SOURCE DOCUMENTS

HR1540 Conference Report as Approved by the United States Congress
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf
Alternate source: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/HR1540conf.pdf

Authorization of Use of Military Force (See bottom of page 6 for final version as signed into law.) http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Authorization-of-Use-of-Military-Force.pdf

President Obama’s Signing Statement: Dec. 31, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Declaration of Independence: (See Freedom Documents tab)
http://nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Constitution of the United States of America: (See Freedom Documents tab)
http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Constitution of the State of Oklahoma
http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/AllOKConstitutionArticles-1.doc

House Voting Record for final version of 2012 NDAA
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Senate Voting Record for final version of 2012 NDAA
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

2012 NDAA, SECTIONS: 1021, 1022,1023
http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/NDAA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (1021-1022-1023).doc

Video explanation of state resolution by Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry
http://livestream.com/WRCG (See: NDAA State Resolution)

NDAA-OK-RES.pdf (622.20 kb)

NDAA-SHERIFF-RES.pdf (646.10 kb)

UPDATE: JAN 25, 2012

"Tea Party, library at odds over use of space" The Hays Daily News, Jan. 20, 2012

'Library board of directors to draft new policy" The Hays Daily News, Jan. 22, 2012

"Library Access," The Hays Daily News, Jan. 25, 2012

Patriots, Veterans, Oath Keepers, and ALL Defenders of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, (especially those in KANSAS),
 
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are under attack more and more with each passing day. Yesterday, Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry invited me into his office to witness a conversation he was having with veteran defender and "Wounded Warrior Project" supporter Roger Ewing of Hays, Kansas.

The Hays Public Library in Hays, Kansas is refusing to allow Roger Ewing of Big First Tea Party, (a member of Tea Party Patriots), the use of taxpayer-funded facilities at the Hays Public Library to teach the Constitution, and is yet another example of the ongoing "intolerable acts" our nation is suffering at the hands of bureaucrats. It seemed almost Orwellian when I first heard of the runaround Mr. Ewing received, including a requirement by the Hays Public Library to "bring in the material" he planned to use for their "prior approval," in direct violation of library policy.

Mr. Ewing's attorney, Patriot Coalition general counsel and constitutional attorney Richard D. Fry is looking into possible legal action against the Hays Public Library, and its leadership. The Hays City Commission's next meeting is: THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2012 – 6:30 P.M.

What I find even more outrageous is that the Hays Public Library Board "denied" his request, not once, but repeatedly, as they were apparently offended that he belonged to a tea party, and intended to use the National Center for Constitutional Studies' "Making of America, The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution" textbook written by Cleon Skousen, author of "The 5,000 Year Leap."

While there are many organizations that produce educational material on the U.S. Constitution, and the founding of our nation, there are none that the Patriot Coalition and many of its partners across the country hold in higher regard than the National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Mr. Bird, the Hays Public Library is NOT your property, but belongs to the citizens of Hays, Kansas. I was amazed that even after Mr. Fry informed Hays Public Library staff and Hays City Attorney John Bird that their policy was a violation of the library's official policy, and an infringement on Mr. Ewing's 1st Amendment Rights, that they not only remained unmoved, but indifferent to his concerns, repeatedly referring to Mr. Ewing's group as a "political party."

Attached is the Hays Public Library's official policy in PDF form, which conflicts with the Hays Public Library's treatment of Mr. Ewing in "every conceivable way," as per library policy, and Kansas state law. I have highlighted numerous areas in their policy documents that illustrate the absurdity of their actions.

According to the Hays Public Library Policy, (in accordance with Kansas State law), Mayor Barbara Wasinger not only appoints all board members, but is a member herself with all the same voting privileges as the rest of the board. The citizens of Hays, Kansas should strongly consider whether Mayor Wasinger has chosen the right people for the Hays Public Library Board, as well as their choice in city attorney. The total disinterest, arrogance, and contempt for its own veteran citizens warrants cleaning house come election time.

If Hays, Kansas Mayor Wasinger will not address this matter post-haste, she too should be voted out of office. I can't think of very many duties of any taxpayer-funded public institution than to be supportive of veterans teaching the U.S. Constitution. Concerned citizens are encouraged to attend and respectfully express their opinions to the Hays City Commissioners at their next meeting, which is this Thursday, January 19, 2012, at 6:30p.m.

Hays Public Library more than likely receives federal, state, and local taxpayer funding. I would encourage everyone to reach out to Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who represents Kansas' 1st Congressional District to find out if federal tax dollars are funding a public library that is refusing a veteran the use of taxpayer-funded facilities to teach the Constitution. If you live in Kansas' Big First District, you can write Rep. Huelskamp here, and/or call his D.C. office from anywhere in the country at (202) 225-2715 .

The Big First Tea Party's original event date, scheduled for tomorrow, has been moved to Thirsty's Brew Pub and Grill, 2704 Vine St., Hays, Kansas.  As Patriot Coalition National Director, and a Gulf War veteran myself, I am calling on all veterans, tea party members, Oath Keepers, minutemen, and ALL defenders of the Constitution to join us in Hays, Kansas tonight, and to let everyone up and down the political food chain know that you stand with Mr. Ewing, and the Big First Tea Party.

HPLpolicy-HIGHLIGHTED.pdf (318.08 kb)

FRIDAY, JAN. 13, 2012 1:30p.m.-4:30p.m. CENTRAL TIME

"4th Annual Kansas State Sovereignty Rally"

(ARCHIVED: VIDEO COVERAGE HERE)

SATURDAY, JAN. 14, 2012, 10:00a.m. - 2:00p.m. CENTRAL TIME

"The Destruction of America: The Intolerable Acts"

 (ARCHIVED: VIDEO COVERAGE HERE)

Patriot Coalition broadcast its first LIVE COVERAGE event Friday, Jan. 13, 2012, from the old Supreme Court Chambers in the Kansas State House from 1:30-4:30 Central Time, and again on Saturday, Jan. 14, 2012 from the Kansan Grill in downtown Topeka, Kansas from 10:00a.m. -2:00p.m. Central Time. Both events were a tremendous success, with lots of interaction between the speakers, attendees, and online viewers. The Friday & Saturday events were sponsored/hosted by our partners at NovemberPatriots.org, which is headed up by Patriot Coalition / FIRE Coalition General Counsel, Mr. Richard D. Fry. Special thanks to all the volunteers from a variety of teaparty and patriot groups, and everyone else that supported this effort across the country. All told, WRCG broadcast over 15 hours of live events and interviews over the MLK holiday weekend with over 3200 viewer hours.

There are still four hours of outstanding video from Sunday's live stream that haven't been published yet, but should be up soon. A technical error at the end of the broadcast failed to archive the footage.

We're new at this broadcasting stuff, and expect some glitches, so please bear with us. We know that many of our partners and members across the country simply cannot travel halfway across the country to attend/participate, and the mainstream media blackout of the issues we address has forced us to provide our own media coverage. In addition to the live broadcast, we will also be recording the speeches for higher quality publication on DVD and the web.

Event videos are archived on our WRCG Channel page, along with today's roughly 2-hour interview with Oath Keepers' Stewart Rhodes and Patriot Coalition's Richard Fry, moderated by Patriot Coalition National Director Jeff Lewis.

CLICK RALLY POSTER BELOW FOR HI-RES PDF VERSION (EASIER TO READ).

VIEW LIVE VIDEO FEED AT: HTTP://LIVESTREAM.COM/WRCG

WRCG = We the People, Restoring Constitutional Governance!

POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS FROM FRIDAY'S SPEAKERS

DR. WATSON'S POWERPOINT: "STOP OBAMA CARE IN KANSAS!"

OK-SAFE : AMANDA TEEGARDEN, HEALTH CARE REFORM

PATRIOT COALITION: JEFF LEWIS, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ART III, SEC 2, CLAUSE 2

GUNOWNERS OF AMERICA, ERICH PRATT, FAST & FURIOUS

REP. PETE DEGRAFF, "KANSAS BUDGET TRICKERY"

Duty to Protect the Constitution and Citizens

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Enlisted members of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath:"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Commissioned officers of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath: "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

UPDATE: JAN 25, 2012:  PATRIOT COALITION / OATH KEEPERS NDAA RESOLUTIONS RELEASED! 

AVAILABLE NOW AT THE PATRIOT COALITION SITE:

http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/NDAA-OK-RES.pdf

http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/NDAA-SHERIFF-RES.pdf

AVAILABLE LATER TODAY AT THE OATH KEEPERS WEBSITE:

http://oathkeepers.org/ndaa/NDAA-OK-RES.pdf

http://oathkeepers.org/ndaa/NDAA-SHERIFF-RES.pdf

December 15, 2011 was the 220th Anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Yesterday was also the day the U.S. Senate approved the death certificate for the Bill of Rights, by a 86-13 vote.

Earlier in the week, 283 Congressmen approved the death certificate on due process when they approved the conference report. The National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540 / S. 1867) still awaits the signature of the Constitutional Coroner-in-Chief.

UPDATE: JAN 02, 2012

On New Year's Eve, our Constitutional Coroner-in-Chief signed the un-Constitutional NDAA into law. President Obama, like Senators McCain, Graham, Levin, Feinstein, Durbin, and others, has played fancy with words, betrayed his oath of office, and committed "treason against the Constitution."

You can read President Obama's "confession" here, which includes his admission that he will IGNORE the parts of the law he doesn't agree with as "non-binding."

You can read the H.R. 1540/S. 1867 conference report here. You can also find the illusive "Law of War Handbook" here.

The Feinstein Amendment, (1546) from page 655 of the conference report reads:

14 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
15 construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to
16 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
17 aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are
18 captured or arrested in the United States.

While this sounds like a protection for U.S. citizens and lawful residents, this amendment did NOTHING of the sort. It only speaks to "existing law or authorities," to detain, without due process, U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, or other persons captured or arrested in the United States.

THERE IS NO EXISTING LAW OR AUTHORITY that passes a Constitutional muster for Mrs. Feinstein's amendment to be applied. The "existing authority" was/is that usurped by Presidents Bush (43) and Obama. Congress couldn't even agree what the relevant "existing law or authority" was, if one existed. The ambiguous "law of war" is repeatedly cited in this legislation without so much as a vague citation, let alone a specific article/section/clause reference.

Senator Lindsey Graham stated on the U.S. Senate floor that "America is part of the battlefield," in his defense of Section 1031 in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1867.

If America is "part of the battlefield" in the nefarious 'war on terror,' then no civil liberties or constitutionally-protected God-given Rights are safe from military and police state activities.

In this police-state environment, ALL Americans became potential domestic terrorists, subject to indefinite detention, devoid of the due process protections of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Notice it doesn't say "no U.S. Citizen or lawful resident alien." It says "No person." That includes ax murderers, rapists, serial killers, traitors, etc... It applies to ALL persons in the United States, and while the Supreme Court has found it to be Constitutional to detain U.S. citizens found on the battlefield abroad to fall under the 'law of war,' they did not rule that such a condition existed for U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens on U.S. soil.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the case referred to by Senator Levin to validate his position that Section 1031 was/is constitutional, referred to the disposition of a U.S. citizen found on the 'battlefield' in Afghanistan, and detained without due process for two years.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, stated,

"Petitioner, a presumed American citizen, has been imprisoned without charge or hearing in the Norfolk and Charleston Naval Brigs for more than two years, on the allegation that he is an enemy combatant who bore arms against his country for the Taliban. His father claims to the contrary, that he is an inexperienced aid worker caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. This case brings into conflict the competing demands of national security and our citizens’ constitutional right to personal liberty. Although I share the Court’s evident unease as
it seeks to reconcile the two, I do not agree with its
resolution.

    Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime. Where the exigencies of war prevent that, the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2, allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily. Absent suspension, however, the Executive’s assertion of military exigency has not been thought sufficient to permit detention without charge. No one contends that the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, on which the Government relies to justify its actions here, is an implementation of the Suspension Clause. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision below."

Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion should be read in its entirety, but I find section V to be most interesting. It reads:

It follows from what I have said that Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless (1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or (2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus. A suspension of the writ could, of course, lay down conditions for continued detention, similar to those that today’s opinion prescribes under the Due Process Clause. Cf. Act of Mar. 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 755. But there is a world of difference between the people’s representatives’ determining the need for that suspension (and prescribing the conditions for it), and this Court’s doing so.

    The plurality finds justification for Hamdi’s imprisonment in the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 115 Stat. 224, which provides:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” §2(a).

This is not remotely a congressional suspension of the writ, and no one claims that it is. Contrary to the plurality’s view, I do not think this statute even authorizes detention of a citizen with the clarity necessary to satisfy the interpretive canon that statutes should be construed so as to avoid grave constitutional concerns, see Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988); with the clarity necessary to comport with cases such as Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 300 (1944), and Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 314—316, 324 (1946); or with the clarity necessary to overcome the statutory prescription that “[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a).5 But even if it did, I would not permit it to overcome Hamdi’s entitlement to habeas corpus relief. The Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which carefully circumscribes the conditions under which the writ can be withheld, would be a sham if it could be evaded by congressional prescription of requirements other than the common-law requirement of committal for criminal prosecution that render the writ, though available, unavailing. If the Suspension Clause does not guarantee the citizen that he will either be tried or released, unless the conditions for suspending the writ exist and the grave action of suspending the writ has been taken; if it merely guarantees the citizen that he will not be detained unless Congress by ordinary legislation says he can be detained; it guarantees him very little indeed.

    It should not be thought, however, that the plurality’s evisceration of the Suspension Clause augments, principally, the power of Congress. As usual, the major effect of its constitutional improvisation is to increase the power of the Court. Having found a congressional authorization for detention of citizens where none clearly exists; and having discarded the categorical procedural protection of the Suspension Clause; the plurality then proceeds, under the guise of the Due Process Clause, to prescribe what procedural protections it thinks appropriate. It “weigh[s] the private interest … against the Government’s asserted interest,” ante, at 22 (internal quotation marks omitted), and–just as though writing a new Constitution–comes up with an unheard-of system in which the citizen rather than the Government bears the burden of proof, testimony is by hearsay rather than live witnesses, and the presiding officer may well be a “neutral” military officer rather than judge and jury. See ante, at 26—27. It claims authority to engage in this sort of “judicious balancing” from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), a case involving … the withdrawal of disability benefits! Whatever the merits of this technique when newly recognized property rights are at issue (and even there they are questionable), it has no place where the Constitution and the common law already supply an answer.

    Having distorted the Suspension Clause, the plurality finishes up by transmogrifying the Great Writ–disposing of the present habeas petition by remanding for the District Court to “engag[e] in a factfinding process that is both prudent and incremental,” ante, at 32. “In the absence of [the Executive’s prior provision of procedures that satisfy due process], … a court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved.” Ante, at 31—32. This judicial remediation of executive default is unheard of. The role of habeas corpus is to determine the legality of executive detention, not to supply the omitted process necessary to make it legal. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and … the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody”); 1 Blackstone 132—133. It is not the habeas court’s function to make illegal detention legal by supplying a process that the Government could have provided, but chose not to. If Hamdi is being imprisoned in violation of the Constitution (because without due process of law), then his habeas petition should be granted; the Executive may then hand him over to the criminal authorities, whose detention for the purpose of prosecution will be lawful, or else must release him.

    There is a certain harmony of approach in the plurality’s making up for Congress’s failure to invoke the Suspension Clause and its making up for the Executive’s failure to apply what it says are needed procedures–an approach that reflects what might be called a Mr. Fix-it Mentality. The plurality seems to view it as its mission to Make Everything Come Out Right, rather than merely to decree the consequences, as far as individual rights are concerned, of the other two branches’ actions and omissions. Has the Legislature failed to suspend the writ in the current dire emergency? Well, we will remedy that failure by prescribing the reasonable conditions that a suspension should have included. And has the Executive failed to live up to those reasonable conditions? Well, we will ourselves make that failure good, so that this dangerous fellow (if he is dangerous) need not be set free. The problem with this approach is not only that it steps out of the courts’ modest and limited role in a democratic society; but that by repeatedly doing what it thinks the political branches ought to do it encourages their lassitude and saps the vitality of government by the people.

There will be more information on this from the Patriot Coalition, but in the mean time, you can also learn more about this threat to the Bill of Rights in the following articles from the Oath Keepers:

Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status - Stewart Rhodes

Enemy Combatant Status No More

Stop Indefinite Detentions of U.S. Citizens without Due Process

(Congressman Ron Paul's Position Below)

"Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed.  The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act.  No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property.  Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time.  The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty.  To lower that bar is to endanger everyone.  When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.

The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th.  The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning.  It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel."  (Read Rep. Paul's complete statement below)

The NDAA Repeals More Rights, Congressman Ron Paul

FROM NATURAL NEWS:

Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so

ADDITIONAL NDAA REFEERNCE MATERIALS:

LAW OF WAR HANDBOOK

DECLARATIONS OF WAR AND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE

TREATMENT OF "BATTLEFIELD DETAINEES" IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM

AUTHORIZATION FOR US OF MILITARY FORCE IN RESPONSE TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS

Are You Ready for Some Candor? Bocephus Calls Obama the Enemy.

It's no secret that Bocephus (Hank Williams, Jr.) is no fan of President Obama's policies. I think Obama must be channeling through Kenny Rogers. How's that "fundamental" transformation of America working out for you? Do you like the fact that energy prices have "necessarily sky-rocketed?"

How about those "shovel-ready jobs" that weren't as shovel-ready as Obama joked about?

Obama has stated the Solyndra debacle was a "bad bet." Really? That sounds like Kenny Rogers in "The Gambler."

Obama treats the American people like a bunch of orphans he's adopted that need his wisdom and guidance, and counsels select citizens with "beer summits" on the patio in the Rose Garden. Hmm... That sounds like Kenny Rogers in the move "Six Pack," where he adopted a bunch of orphans, and took them on the road. Bus trip with the "Rambler" anyone?

Hank called Obama "the enemy." Well, it's hard to argue with that assessment considering the President has committed "treason against the Constitution" more times than this patriot can keep up with, but he's not alone. He's had help. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitanto think patriotic Americans and veterans are potential domestic terrorists. Are we not supposed to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic? Are public officials who openly and blatantly usurp the Constitution not enemies to our Constitutional Republic?

I agree with Hank Williams, Jr. There's still hope for America, and President Obama can "Keep the Change." DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano needs investigating for her relationship with un-indicted co-conspirators of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Holy Land trials.

(See our article: "If You See Something un-Constitutional, Say Something.")

(See our article: "Never Let a Fast and Furious Crisis Go to Waste")

From TheBlaze.com:
‘No Freedom of Speech if You’re a Conservative’: Hank Jr. Gives Glenn a Candid Interview

We need an Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security that will actually uphold and defend the Constitution they swore an oath to. Holder and Napolitano need to be retired/replaced.

If President Obama were wise, and still wants to "channel" Kenny Rogers, maybe he should skip Harry Reed's "Cowboy Poetry Festival," have a "beer summit" with Hank Williams, Jr., and sing a few bars from my parody of "The Gambler:"

"The Rambler"

On a cool fall mornin' on a couch bound for nowhere
Fox&Friends met up with the gambler, they were all too tired to sleep
Steve and Gretchin took turns a starin' at the teleprompter
'Til boredom overtook him and Bocephus began to speak

Hank said, "Son, I've made a life, out of readin' people's faces
And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes
So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces
"Are you ready for some candor? I'll give you some advice"

You got to know when to Holder, know when to fold fold her.
Know when to walk away (from selling guns to cartels) and know when to run
You never count our money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when your presidency's done

You got to know when to Holder, know when to fold her
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count our money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when your presidency's done.

Original lyrics to Kenny Roger's "The Gambler" can be found here.

RUSE: "an action intended to mislead, deceive, or trick; stratagem"

I'd like to believe that FOX News isn't "part of the ruse," but their reporting on the lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama, and ObamaCare has been anything but "fair and balanced."

Does FOX News have ANY Constitutional lawyers/scholars on the payroll besides Judge Napolitano? The resumes of Megyn Kelly and Greta van Susteren would make one think they knew what they were talking about, and yet, their "slobbering love affair" (sorry Mr. Goldberg) with the high court has either clouded their objectivity and judgment, OR management won't let them tell the truth.

Either way, they are part of the "ruse"

Case in point (1):

If Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly had "really" wanted to be fair and balanced in their discussion Thursday night about the federal judge's ruling in the Alabama case they would have discussed WHY this judge was even hearing the case since she has ZERO Constitutional authority to do so. They would have warned the American People that they were being sold a pig in a poke; that the ruling was null and void upon its inception, just like an un-Constitutional law is, but they didn't do that. (See U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.)

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Case in point (2):

On Friday night, Greta van Susteren had Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on for the hundredth time (exaggeration, I've lost count) whining about his court case against ObamaCare. NOT ONCE has Greta asked the very likeable Virginia AG why he didn't uphold his oath and file his lawsuit directly in the Supreme Court where the Constitution authorizes such a case to be heard "in the first instance." That, ladies and gents, is what "original jurisdiction" means, but no, Greta hasn't done that.

In fact, NONE of the talking heads on FOX News have taken our public servants to task for usurping the Constitution with these dog-and-pony kangaroo court cases. NEVER.

Why is that? Our legal and Constitutional scholars haven't "clerked" for a Supreme Court justice, but at least one of them has been trying cases before it for half a century and is a trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society.

Cuccinelli admitted to Greta Friday night that he knew "all along" that the Supreme Court would have to decide whether ObamaCare is Constitutional or not, and yet he has squandered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Virginia taxpayer dollars fighting a case he was REQUIRED by his voluntary oath to file in the Supreme Court in the first place, AND HE KNEW THAT TOO!

Do you hear me? Cuccinelli KNEW the Constitution protected Virginia's sovereign right (and that of the other States) to have their grievances heard ONLY in the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what the Constitution says, not me. I didn't write it, but I DID take an oath to support and defend it against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, just like Ken Cuccinelli did.

So why would gentlemanly Ken refuse to do his duty? It's simple. It's called "face time," and "personal political capital" to be gleened from milking out the dispute between Virginia and the federal government.

Try a case in one court... doesn't take years. Try a case in several courts as you wind through the judicial system, and you can milk it out for all it's worth.

The same can be said of ALL the players on both sides of ALL the cases, including the 26 State Attorneys General who are embroiled in the Florida suit against ObamaCare, the players in Alabama and Arizona on BOTH SIDES of the issue, and all the legal ambulance chasers writing amicus briefs for various "friends of the court."

Why is FOX News participating? Follow the ratings it brings them as each treasonous judge makes a ruling that brings the public servant usurpers back on their shows to discuss it. In essence, follow the money.

Yes. I said "treasonous judges," because, according to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, that is exactly what they are.

According to Chief Justice Marshall, and I'll paraphrase here for brevity's sake, "to take authority the court doesn't have, or to refuse to exercise authority the court does have... to do either is "treason to the Constitution."

The liberal sheep listen to their liberal sheep-herders on MSNBC, and the conservative sheep listen to their conservative sheep-herders on FOX News.

They both play us for suckers, preying on our liberal or conservative convictions to sway our opinions to be in synch with their goals and objectives.

Why am I so hard on Bill, Greta, Ken, and Megyn? Because they know better. Their discretion has been "informed" through "education" as Jefferson advised, and yet, they'd rather scoop up another 30 pieces of silver as they betray the trust of the American people.

Arizona's Governor Brewer? Just as guilty. A reliable and trusted source that couldn't be any closer to the SB-1070 case confided that it was a "strategic" decision to not take our advice and tell the Holder Justice Department to go pack sand.

Notice I said "strategic" and didn't say "lawful" or "Constitutional." STRATEGIC!

Remember the definition of "ruse?"

RUSE: "an action intended to mislead, deceive, or trick; stratagem"

The fourth estate (media) are supposed to be the Paul Reveres, sounding the alarm when our liberties and freedoms are being trampled, but we are being intentionally misled, deceived, and tricked, and it's all part of various strategies by the usual suspects in power (on the left and right side of the aisle of shame).

Bill, you can't give enough of your ill-gotten booty to charity to erase the harm you do to our Constitution on a daily basis by your inaction. I would say inept, but you're a Harvard grad. You should know better.

Megyn, you clerked for who is arguably the most honorable man on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, and yet you regularly, just like Bill and Greta, mislead the American people into believing you. We all want to believe you. You're adorable, intelligent, articulate, well-schooled, etc... You should be ashamed. All of you. I ain't buying the ruse, and as much good that FOX News does, when it comes to issues that scream out for Paul or Paula Revere, you come up short.

The clowns at News Corp ran off the only honest man they had working for them: Glenn Beck. He didn't always get it right, but I do believe that he was trying to.

How about trying a new approach: FAIR AND HONEST.

For "fair and honest" information on where and why all of these court cases should have been heard in the Supreme Court, read the "scarlet letters" at REJOINORDIE.COM.

If you are a U.S. Citizen PLEASE, get educated on this, and call your Congressman, Senators, and demand they amend 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 to halt these un-Constitutional court cases!

If you want more information, contact me at: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com

God bless America and those with enough backbone and integrity to defend her!

RCG-PRIME.pdf (166.35 kb) (Proposed changes to fix un-Constitutional statues in Title 28)

REJOINORDIE.pdf (520.71 kb) (Scarlet letters to Gov. Brewer, Va. AG Cuccinelli, and Chief Justice Roberts)

Original-Jurisdiction-3-2a.ppt (4.43 mb) (Detailed PowerPoint presentation on original jurisdiction)

Famous words by a famous wise man: "A Republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin was the wise elder statesman at the Constitutional Convention of the Second Continental Congress who gave that response when queried by a local Philadelphia woman at the close of the convention.

Yesterday was the 224th anniversary of Franklin's warning. How are we doing at "keeping the Republic?"

In less than a week we commemorated the attacks of 9/11/2001 and celebrated the adoption of the "New Constitution" of 9/17/1787, and yet, when I back away from the "cumbia" moments suggested by President Obama and the media, I am at once alarmed and disgusted.

President Obama, who believes the Constitution is a "negative" document, illustrated yet again that he cares nothing for the Supreme Law of the Land with his Sept. 17, 2011 weekly press release.

Rather than commemorata and celebrate the 224th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, President Obama touted more socialist programs and irresponsible government spending.

In fact, Obama's Constitution Day press release didn't mention the Constitution AT ALL, let alone celebrate its existence. His words match his actions: those of a traitor to his oath.

Read the dribble yourself here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/17/weekly
-address-passing-american-jobs-act

I don't have voter's remorse, but I do have citizen's remorse. We need a President who respects, defends, and honors our nation's founding documents. Perhaps in 2012 our citizenry will vote for a President based on the "content of his/her character," and NOT on the "color" of his/her skin.

Martin Luther King, Jr. must be turning over in his grave in disgust.

We need to dust off our Bibles and Constitutions and remember that our liberties, freedoms, and security come from God, not men like Barack, Harry, and Charlie.

The Preamble to the North Carolina Constitution sums it up better than I ever could:

"We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution."

In an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly following President Obama's campaign speech to a joint session of Congress, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, probably for the first time since taking over the job of carnival barker for Obama, told the truth!

Whether it was a Freudian slip, or simply the truth slipping past the lies, Mr. Carney said the following:

"The President feels, as he said tonight, that we need to put party ahead of country." (Listen here)

                                             -Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, Sept. 08, 2011

According to Dictionary.com, a carney is "a person who works in a carnival."

I now understand why O'Reilly mentioned going for popcorn. The speech, like the comment above, are indicative of an Administration that doesn't have a clue what "government getting out of the way" means.

The leadership of both parties are putting "party ahead of country," as Jay Carney stated.

Phase out the agencies and programs that are NOT authorized by the Constitution, and our economy will be just fine. Restore Constitutional governance, Americans! Stop sending clowns to Washington.

Are Sam Brownback and Barack Obama two peas from the same pod? When it comes to ignoring the Constitution and promoting ObamaCare, it's dificult to tell them apart. They do make strange bedfellows. The casual observer might think they have nothing in common.

Actions speak louder than words. This poster illustrates they have more in common than either will admit. Restore integrity to the Kansas GOP and above all "Restore Constitutional Governance."

CLICK POSTER IMAGE ABOVE TO DOWNLOAD HI-RESOLUTION 30"x40" VERSION.

More on this to follow!