[RobynC]

Martial Law by Executive Order

President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.

Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.

What is extraordinary in the new Executive Order is that this supreme power is designated through the president to the secretaries that run the Government itself:
[LIST][*]The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;[*]The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;[*]The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;[*]The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;[*]The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;[*]The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.
The Executive Order even stipulates that in the event of conflict between the secretaries in using these powers, the president will determine the resolution through his national security team.

The new Executive Order gives the government, through the Secretary of Labor, the right to proactively mobilize U.S. citizens for "labor" as the government deems necessary and to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to maintain data to coordinate the nation's work needs in relation to national defense.

What is extraordinary about the Executive Order is that, like the NDAA, this can all be done in peacetime without any national emergency to justify it. The language of the Order does not state that all these extraordinary measures will be done in the event of "national security" or a "national emergency." They can simply be done for "purposes of national defense," clearly a broader remit that allows the government to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, to whomever it wants, all without any judicial restraint or due process. As Orwell famously said in 1984, "War is peace. Peace is war." This is now the reality on the ground in America.

This new Executive Order was written and signed in complete secret and then quietly released by the White House on its website without comment. All this was done under a president who studied constitutional law at Harvard.

Our political elites have come to consider democracy an impediment to effective governance and they are slowly and painstakingly creating all the democratic legalities necessary to abridge our democratic rights with impunity, all to ensure our "security." Of such measures do republics fall and by such measures tyrants emerge.

The only thing that really remains is the occasion to test the new rules of the game. Perhaps that will be war with Iran, perhaps some contrived emergency, or perhaps, as long as the public and media remain asleep, no occasion will be necessary at all. It will just slowly happen of its own accord and we, like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, will just sit there and be consumed by our own turpitude.

Is there anything that can legally be done?


R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

[RobynC]

As an aside: I'm wondering, would Congress and the Senate be happy to hear about such a power grab -- they'd be losing some power here. If you think so, write them

R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

[mariogreymist]

As an aside: I'm wondering, would Congress and the Senate be happy to hear about such a power grab -- they'd be losing some power here. If you think so, write them

R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

Congress won't do anything about this. The vast majority of Congress is beholden to the same power elites that these EOs protect. In fact, Congress is insulated by these EOs in that, if enacted, the President can take massively unpopular actions without forcing congress to choose between bankers/industrialists on the one hand, and their constituents on the other. (In case of massive protests/rioting etc) This way, Senators and Members can still go to the bankers and corporate boards asking for big bribes in their next re-election campaign, while also going to the people and mouthing comforting platitudes about doing work for the people.

The only way to bring real political scrutiny to these EOs is to put enough outsiders (neither R nor D) in congress to make it an issue.

[RobynC]

Is it possible to get SCOTUS to preemptively review the EO? As I understand it, EO's can be declared unconstitutional, and it could very well be turned against the courts.


R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

[mariogreymist]

Generally speaking, US courts only consider cases where the person bringing suit can demonstrate they are materially affected by the issue at hand. This makes these EOs an interesting Catch-22 situation, where once someone actually is materially affected, the USSC will be irrelevant.

[RobynC]

@mariogreymist

Generally speaking, US courts only consider cases where the person bringing suit can demonstrate they are materially affected by the issue at hand.

Not if the review originates from the Supreme Court itself. I've managed to contact the ACLU and ask them if they could contact the Supreme Court and try and get them to review the issue, a friend has already joined in. The link is pretty solid I gave you up top.


R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

[mariogreymist]

Good luck with that. It seems unlikely given the current makeup of the court. I could see Scalia and Thomas wanting to get rid of that EO, but I don't know where there would be three more votes. Most of the rest of the court seems comprised of political loyalists, and Obama appointees.

[RobynC]

I was wondering what would happen if people refused this draft? Would people

• Be jailed as traditional draft dodgers
• Be jailed indefinitely as terrorists
• Be disappeared
• Be summarily executed

R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

[RobynC]

@mariogreymist

Good luck with that. It seems unlikely given the current makeup of the court. I could see Scalia and Thomas wanting to get rid of that EO

It's a start


R.C.

Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

[sprinkles]

Martial Law by Executive Order

Is there anything that can legally be done?

Actually, no. There isn't. Even if there were, they'd override it.

Who's going to make them follow the laws? Themselves? If due process is out then a legal response is out, too. Laws without enforcement do nothing. If there aren't some people with force behind the laws, that say "if you don't do this, we will make you" then there's no practical effect.

So if this is really happening, the answer is no. You can't do anything in the legal venue. The whole point of this is that they are bypassing the system that is in place to handle that.