By
Michael LeMieux
December 5, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
I, and many others, have stated many times that the federal government has over stepped its constitutional authority. Over the past century we have seen countless instances where the federal government has ignored the Constitution and even conspired to willfully thwart the bounds of the Constitution for its own ends. In fact the Judiciary has openly stated that a thing as simple as the passage of time has the power to change the Constitution; this is basis for this article.
I would like to present to you a United States District Court case out of North Carolina; Sullivan vs United States, 03-CV-39.[1] This case was a motion for a temporary restraining order, filed by LTC Donald Sullivan and Specialist Jeffrey Sullivan, concerning the Iraq war in 2003.
The basic argument in the case was one of Constitutional authority. Sullivan argued that before the federal government could send our troops to invade another country it was constitutionally necessary for the Congress to declare war.[2]
The counsel for the President argued that the executive branch had the power, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to “make” war, which, he declared, was separate from and did not require a declaration to enact.
What is interesting is that nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase “make war” in relation to the powers of the Executive. Article 2, Section 2 states only: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;…” That is the full extent of the declaration of the powers of the Executive in relation to his “making war.”
The Legislature, on the other hand, includes FAR more war powers; Article 1, Section 8, (relevant part) states: “The Congress shall have power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support armies, but not Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;…”
It is very apparent that the vast amount of military power was to be vested in the Congress to determine military action but to the Executive the only action was to be the Commander in Chief responsible to Congress to make war.
It is the responsibility of Congress to declare war. It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure the safety of the United States from insurrection and invasion, not the Executive. The executive is to carry out the will of the people through the Congress. It was done this way because our founders remembered what it was like to be ruled where the dictates of a single man (king) could plunge a nation into war. The founders knew that it would be much harder to gain a consensus of Congress, to place the lives of Americans at jeopardy, than a single President. It was not supposed to be easy to go to war; it was made difficult so that it would be the will of the people to do so and not the whim of a few.
After 911 it would have been very easy for Congress to make an official declaration of war and the vast majority of the people would have supported it. Iraq, on the other hand, never had the full support of the American people and Congress never declared war, even when it involved the invasion of a sovereign nation, which is an act of war.
This, for the most part, was the basis for the Sullivan case. But what was revealed in that case, goes far beyond the mere expansion of Federal power and goes deep into the corrupt and manipulative nature of our system of governance, the lack of moral character by those in power to stand up for what is right and for the rule of law.
On page 6 of the court transcript, Mr. Lepore, counsel for the President, states that this case should be dismissed as the court should not get involved in this type of case as it is a political question – he states: “Okay, the political question doctrine, Judge, counsels courts not to get involved in issues that are relegated to the political branches… And if there is one issue that routinely is found to be a political question… it is that of involving war powers.”
Advertisement
Really, I always thought a declaration of war was a legal term? According to Black’s Law Dictionary the definition of Declaration of war is: “A country’s announcement that it is officially engaged in war against another country.” Which would mean a military engagement against another country, without a declaration of war, is an unofficial war, including the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. In this case the judge, on page 9, stated that Congress implied a declaration of war by its complicity with the Executive. Again I could find nowhere in the Constitution where an implied declaration of war was valid.
On page twelve of the court transcript the counsel for the President states: “No court has ever held – again, I know you don’t like this argument – but no court has ever held that the power to declare war equals the power to engage in war. And they are very distinct.” The Judge replied: “Well, I quite agree with you on that.”
If you read the entire Constitution from cover to cover you will not find a grant of power for the Executive to “engage in war.” Every instance of war required an act of Congress to legislate the action before the executive could “engage in war.” It is quite obvious that Mr. Lepore was trying to show the difference between the act of “engaging in war” and the legal/political “declaration of war.” One is the physical act of hostility the other a legal formality, but an important one. The main essence, I believe, is that we should not be “engaging” until we have declared.
Between pages 12 and 23, of the case, the Judge, LTC Sullivan, and Mr. Lepore banter about collusion between the Executive and Legislative branch’s to do what ever it is that they want to get done. Then on page 23 the court (judge) makes an astounding revelation on one of the means of modifying the Constitution; one you have never heard about, openly. Some may know it as a version of “Stare Decisis.” – meaning “To stand by things decided.” You would have heard this in the Supreme Court nomination hearings. They always want to know if the nominee will stand by “Stare Decisis.” Will they stand by the decisions of the judges before them?
But what if they are wrong? That is why it is so hard to get things changed in Washington, even when things are happening that are unconstitutional. And the Judge gives us a clue on Constitutional changes because of history and time, he says: “I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I’m correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16thAmendment, which was the Internal revenue, Income Tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that Amendment… I think it’s fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don’t think any court would ever – would set it aside… I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred… Yet nonetheless, I’m sure no court’s going to say that the 16th Amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason, although I wouldn’t mind filing for a rebate myself. But I think that there may be something analogous there vis a vis the continued practice of the Executive to have incursions and police actions or to commit the country to hostilities without the formal declaration of war.”
The judge openly admits, in open court, that the Constitution can be changed illegally and the courts will uphold it. The Executive can grab power that is not his and no one in the government will stand up to him. Likewise, the Legislature can abdicate its duties, refuse to abide by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and it becomes accepted.
We have generations of American citizens that have been persecuted by the infernal IRS, families and lives destroyed, and the theft of trillions of dollars from the American citizens on the back of a lie and our courts not only know it – they defend it.
The American political system is corrupt! How can we expect justice in America when the courts openly admit to supporting unconstitutional laws? Legislatures openly admit to not obeying their oaths or follow the Constitution; the Executive openly defies his oath and threatens to pass his agenda by decree if the Legislature does not do what he wants (see the recent FCC announcement concerning net neutrality).
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Now, more so than at any time in our history, it is imperative that we demand that our leaders, both state and federal, honor their oaths and obey the Constitution and return our nation to the Republic we are supposed to be guaranteed.[3] But they won’t do it willingly; they won’t easily give up the power they have become accustomed to wielding. They must be shown there are consequences to their treachery and it must begin within the states. We must demand from our local state leaders that they honor their oaths and must stop accepting ANY federal regulations found to be unconstitutional[4]– even those based on the 16th Amendment. Return to the true balance of power – that of strong, independent state governments that protected the state citizen from a central government that would become tyrannical.[5] The time is now – Demand Honor, Demand their Oaths be kept, or Demand their resignations.
Footnotes:
1,
Court
case
2,
Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11
3,
Constitution, Article 4, Section 4
4,
Thomas Jefferson – “Of liberty I would say that, in the
whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to
our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our
will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I
do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is
often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the
right of an individual.”
5,
Thomas Jefferson – "To compel a man to furnish funds for
the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
6,
� 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
Share
This ArticleSign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
Michael
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He
served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard)
and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified
paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in
the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member.
He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple
Heart for injuries received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically
discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently
works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com
