Patriot Beware
-
Upload
steve-diggins -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Patriot Beware
8/14/2019 Patriot Beware
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 1/7
Patriot Beware!merica's political landscape
is riddled with ideological
pitfalls and snares that
threaten he unwary. Those who de-
pend upon the major media for per-
spectiveand understandingabout he
state of the nation me treated o a daily
barrage of misinformation and propa-
gandaparadedas unassailablewisdom.
For example, the major media con-
stantly peddlethe notions that weHare
helps the poor but doesn't create de-pendency,that the hesident haspow-
ers as"Commander n Chief" to assign
U.S. troops to UN command at will,
and that "assault weapons" in the
handsof law-abiding citizens consti-
tute a danger to the public safety.
While Americans whose views the
Establishment confines to the "far
right" of the political spectrum are
less susceptible o the manipulations
of the major media, some do fall prey
to different myths, often in the form
of miracle cures for our political ills.One such panacea is term limits,
which has been embraced by some
conservatives as a remedy for con-gressionalsocialism. Others believe
that we should abandon he lesislative
processaltogether and concentrateon nul-
lifying the enforcement of unconstitutional
laws through the activism of "fully-in-
formed"juries. A few have even concluded
that our situation has grown so grave that
patriots must now assume a survivalist
profile by stockpiling food and ammuni-
tion and organizing into armed militias.None of the above provides a realistic
solution to America's political and cul-
tural difficulties. Sucha solution can only
be achieved hrough the creationof a con-
stitutionally literate and principled elec-
Truth s the patriot'smost effectiveweapon.
ttAmericans are misled and de-
ceived into believing that the 'in-
come' tax applies to the general
public.... The IRS admits that the6income' tax system is dependent
upon voluntary filing of tax re-
turns." (The Fact Finder,May 16,
1993)
The U.S . Internal Revenue Ser-
vice doesboast hat it relies upon the
voluntary compliance of most of the
public who file returns without being
directly hounded by government
agents; it is the only way the IRS
could stay within its budget. But that
doesn't mean there is no mandatory
requirement; the IRS does indeed
prosecutecitizens who don't file. In-
come axes,despiteour most desper-
ate wishes, are not voluntary; theirpayment is required of all individu-
als (unless heir income is less than
the exemption amount) residing in
the United StatesunderSection6012
of Title 26 0f the u.S. code. whichstates:"Returns with respect to in-
come taxes under subtitle A [govern-ing tax computationsl shall be made
by the following: (lXA) Every indi-
vidual having for the taxable year
torate. Most of the false alternativesserve gross ncome which equals or exceeds he
as distractions o genuine progress.Yet exemption amount...." The penalty for
while the above examples constitute a violation of Section 6O12 can be found
faulty thought process (term limits will under Section 7203, which calls for up to
make voters wise, there are sufficient a $25,000fine and one year in prison for
numbers of activists to stack uries with an individual "who willfully fails to pay
regularity or to defeat the U.S. govern- such estimated ax or tax, make such re-
ment on the battlefield, etc.), there are a turn, keep such records, or supply suchnumber of distractions based upon out- information."
right falsehoods and,/or deliberate decep- THB New ANTIRIcAN as long opposed
tions.Followingaresomeofthosetangents the federal income tax, but it should be
patriots occasionally face on the path to re- eliminated through the legislative process
storing imited constitutionalgovernment. and not civil disobedience.
!
oE!Uc
o
THE NEW AMERICAN / FEBRUARY 17, 1997 25
8/14/2019 Patriot Beware
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 2/7
8/14/2019 Patriot Beware
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 3/7
from whatever source derived, including
.. . (1 ) Compensation or services."Andwages all within the bounds of compen-
sation for services.
"[The public record] irrefutably showsthat not one, but several, egregiousfrauds were committed in the purported
ratification of the Sixteenth Amend-
ment. That amendment was. thus. not
ratified at all and any appearance ofratffication which may exist has no foun-
dation because of the frauds committedby parties involved in the ratificationprocess." (The Law That Never Was,VoL II, by Bilt Benson, 1986)
The 16th Amendment was a direct re-
sponse o the 1895 SupremeCourt deci-sionin Pollockv. FarmersLoanandTrust
Co. The reaction to that decisionwas oneof outrageamong Populist Party agitatorsand their sympathizers within the Demo-
cratic Pafty,who browbeat thepublic intoaccepting he amendment.Therewas ittleorganizedoppositionto the ncome tax bythe time the Congress had submitted theincometax (16th) amendment o the statesfor ratification in 1909. The amendmentpassed he Senatewithout a single "nay"
vote, and only i4 opposed he income taxin the House. The votes were similarlylopsided n most state egislatures.
Bill Benson'scontention hat the 16thAmendment was never properly ratifiedand is therefore invalid rests on the factthat most of the stateswhich ratified the16th Amendment did so by ratifying reso-lutions which varied slishtlv from the
amendmentsubmittedby Congress.How-ever, all of the variations in the state-passed esolutionsare clearly attributable
to grammatical oversights and impropertranscriptionratherthan fraud or any sub-stantivechange n the amendment. n histwo-volume work, The Law that NeverWas, Benson never successfullydemon-strates hat the 16th Amendment wa sfraudulently ratified; in fact, his research
all but proves he opposite.Bensondoesn'teven attempt to contend that the stateswere under the impression that they wereratifying someamendmentother than theincome tax; there was only one incometax amendmentsubmitted o the statesbyCongress,and the issue was well knownin state egislative circles.
Th e only interesting case made by
THENEW AMERICAN FEBRUARY17, 1997
8/14/2019 Patriot Beware
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 4/7
Benson is that Kentucky never appeared
to complete the ratification process.Thelegislature n that statepasseda resolution
with grammatical mistakes (compared tothe congressionalamendment),and t was
vetoed by the state's anti-incometax gov-
ernor. Realizing the errors, the Kentucky
House again took up the amendment andpassedanotherbill. There s some contro-versy as to whether the Senatepassedor
rejected the amendment he second time(according to Benson, the Senateournal
extracts recorded the amendmentas hav-ing beenpassedwhile the officialjournal
recorded the measure as having been re-jected). In any event, the Kentucky legis-lature appeared o be satisfied that it had
ratified the amendment.But even ncome
tax advocates of the day fretted about theappropriateness f including Kentucky
among those having ratified the amend-ment. Income tax advocate Kossuth Kent
Kennan wrote of Kentucky in his 1910
booklncome Taxation that"there
is somequestionto the regularity of the proceed-
ings" and worried about he consequences
if "the vote of Kentucky should becomenecessaryo make up the total of thirty-
six states avoring the amendment." It
was. ndeed.one of the 36.As to the governor's veto, it was imma-
terial. When Congressdeclared he amend-ment ratified in 1913. t did so on the basis
of the constitutional requirement that
amendments e ratified only by the legis-
latures,of the states or by state ratifyingconventions(the mode of ratification de-
terminedby Congress).Moreover, to this
day Kentucky has not contested ts inclu-
sion among those stateshaving ratified theincome ax amendment.
Interestingly, most of those who cite
the Bensonbook do so in order to excusethemselves rom paying income taxes ontheir wages,which the SupremeCourt has
always ruled an indirect tax not in need of
apportionment. In other words, the Su-premeCourt would still uphold unappor-tioned income taxes on the wage income
of individuals even if the 16th Amend-
ment were repealed. The only realisticmeans of freeing this nation from Karl
Marx's income tax is for Americans toforce Congressto repeal the statutesal-lowing for the income tax, along withthose unconstitutional welfare-state aws
which necessitate n onerous ax burden.
"Citizens born in the Sovereign 50states were not born in a territorv over
THENEWAMERICAN FEBRUARY 7, 1997
which the United States is Sovereign!Therefore the Citizens of the 50 statesare not the subjects ofthe graduated di-rect income tax." (Vultares in Eagle'sClothing, by Lynne Meredith, 1994)
This statement s basedupon the mis-conception that the general taxation power
of the Congress is limited by Article I,Section 8, Clause 17of the Constitution; tis not. That clause grants Congress the
power to "exerciseexclusive egislation nall caseswhatsoever,over such district (not
exceeding ten miles square) as may, bycessationof particular states,and the ac-ceptanceof Congress,become he seat ofthe Government of the United States, andto exercise ike authority over all placespurchasedby consentof the legislatureofthe State n which the same shall be, forthe erection of forts, magazines,arsenals,dock-yards,and other needful buildings."
Of course, the exclusive urisdiction
within federal territories $anted by Clause
17 is in addition to other enumerated ed-eral powerswithin the states,not a limita-tion upon them. The federal government
may levy any kind of tax it chooses ex-
cept a tax on exports), either direct or in-direct, within the 50 states. The onlylimitation on the taxation power is that in-direct taxes must be "uniform" throughout
the United Statesand direct taxesmust beapportioned according to congressionalrepresentation. The 16th Amendment tothe Constitution puts the ncome tax in thecategory of taxation requiring unifor-mity.) To suggest hat the Founding Fa-thers drafted a federal constitution onlyfor the District of Columbia and its terri-tories s ludicrous. The District of Colum-bia did not even exist at the time and wasestablished o provide a seat for the na-tional government.
"Social Security tax is just another in-come tax that you voluntarily agreed topay." (Medin Bypass, April 1996)
By law, all wage-earners re required opay social security ax underSection 3101of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (self-em-
ployed individuals pay under Section1401), and the only exception under thelaw is for a few religious ordersapprovedby the Treasury Department. ncidentally,
a rider on the implementing legislation forthe GATT/IVTO treaty passedby Con-gress during a lame-duck session of the103rd Congress equiresall Americans tohave a Social Security number from birthbeginningJanuary , 1997.
"All Americans can set themselvesFree with the Stroke of a Pen by simply
Giving Absolute Voluntary Jurisdictionto the Common Law Court. and De-manding their Relief and Remedies for
their Grievances." (Emilio L. Ippolito,founder of the Common Law Court ofthe People,November 211995)
If Emilio Ippolito has gained freedomwith the stroke of a pen in creating a
"common law court," why is it that he hasbeen spending so much time in prison?
Here is some backgroundon the commonlaw andthe citizen's groupingsmarketingthemselvesas common law courts.
"Common law" is a generic term de-scribing the legal system the American
states nherited from England at the timeof independence.Common law developedin Englandover the last 900 yearsor so,butis generally traced to its beginnings duringthe reign of Edward I in 1100. Edward's
curia rode circuits to institute justice
throughout England andgenerally came toenforce the same laws equitably to all ar-eas of the country in the king's jurisdic-
tions. Although thesecommonly enforcedlaws initially applied only to feudal nobles,the Magna Carta of l2l5 and subsequentlegislation enacted by the English kingsgradually increased the jurisdiction andreach of the common law over the variouslocal feudal and ecclesiasticalcourts.
Over the centuriescommon law has ac-quired a number of characteristicswhichprotect individual rights, suchas the rightto a trial by jnry, the right to face an ac-cuser in open court, protection against
searchand seizure,etc. The English Peti-
tion of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights(1688) n Englandaddedgreatlyto a bodyof law which set common law rights
above the whims of the Crown. In court.common law involves decisionsarrived atby precedent,with casesarising from ac-tual controversies.One ofthe greatest n-fluences on the American common law
system at the time of independencewasSir William Blackstone's four-volume
Commentaries,which were basedupon a
series of 1756 lectures at Oxford. TheFounding Fathers requently cited Black-
stone'sCommentaries n their correspon-
dence,particularly the frst volume which
expounded he rights of Englishmen, andused many of his arguments as ustifica-
tion for secession rom England. TheFounderswere also influenced by Sir Ed-
ward Coke, a great exponent of commonlaw who affirmed the principle that the
8/14/2019 Patriot Beware
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 5/7
common aw can control and supersede n
act of parliament.
The term "common law" is often em-
ployed to differentiate from the civil law
system usedby non-English-speaking oun-
tries as well as to distinguish from equity
law and specialized ypes of law and courts
used n the United States,such as admiralty
law on the federal level and family and u-
venile law on the state evel. TheConstitu-
tion grants the Supreme Court jurisdictionin all casesarising under the Constitution"in fcommon] law and equity," as well as
in cases arising from the military, the
states,or federal officials."Common law courts" have been
springing up in recentyears hrough the
efforts of some misguided individuals.
Someare ollowers of EugeneSchroder's
bizarre heory that the U.S. Constitution
has been suspended.*Others seek dec-
larations of statecitizenship(or Repub-
lic of Texas itizenship)n avainattempt
to evade either income taxes or federaljurisdiction in some other controversy.
Still others seek o "prosecute" elected
officials for alleged "crimes."
The creationof "common law courts"
by the fiat of certain ndividuals is usu-
ally basedon the false suppositions hat
conrmon la w was abolished in the
United States at some time during the
20th century and that anyonecan create
his own common law court under the
Constitution. Yet none of the so-called
common law courts which Tne New
AwnrceN has examined even pretends o
cite a specific provision of the U.S. or
stateconstitutionsauthorizingprivateciti-
zens o create such a court.
Thesecommon aw court'Judges" are
not electedby anyone other than the small
circle of zealots who peddletheir deviant
common law court theories, and they are
not appointedby elected officials. These"courts" therefore violate the fundamen-
tal principle of American government
which requires the consent of the gov-
erned. Although not directly part of the
common law, the consentof the governed
has long been associatedwith the com-mon law and can be traced back to the
Magna Carta itself, which required the
consentof the nobles for the king to im-
posean "aid or scutage tax]." More often
than not, these unelected "common law
courts" pass illegitimate multi-million
dollar 'Judgments" againstelected offi-
cials and legitimate government entities.
One such court notified Colorado Attor-
THENEWAMERICANFEBRUARY7, 1997
ney General Gale Norton that her en-forcement of "illegal" laws had resulted
in a'Judgment" againsther of $3.7billion
in punitive damages.The Dallas Morning
News eceiveda $1 billion udgmentagainst
it from the"CommonLaw Court of Pleas";
the Montana Freemenoffered a $1 million
bounty on the local sheriff through its bo-gus common aw court; and another com-
mon law" court. decidins in favor of the
"Republ ic of Texas." [anded down ajudgment of more than $93 trillion against
the U.S. sovernment and other entities.
Sir Wilf am Blackstone: His Commentarieshad major influence on U.S. common l aw.
These"common law courts" do not ap-ply law, have no legitimacy as courts, and
do not rule in any sort of common man-
ner. They are nothing more than lynch
mobs without a rope.
"[]t is now resolved at law that the Re-public of Texas s re-installed as ts ownfree and independent Nation among na-
tions, and is subject only to its treaties
authorized by its Constitution." (John C.
VanKirk, "President" of the Republic
of Texas moYement,January 5,1996)
A few Texans claim to have initiated a
constitutional convention and set up theirown "provisional" national government,
but there is no legitimacy to either their"government" or their rulings. It should
be noted that the unelected Republic of
Texas RT ) leaders ave no appreciation
of the fact that legitimate governmentre-quires the consent of the governed - a
concept embraced by the Founding Fa-
thers of both the United Statesand Texas.
Leadersof the Republic of Texas plan
to hold a Texas constitutionalconvention
by January1, 1998.They assert hat Texas
was never legally annexedby the United
States, the in tent and best efforts of
Stephen Austin and Sam Houston not-
withstanding. The crux of their argument
is that Congressdid not have the power toannexTexas nto the union under he Con-
stitution becauseTexaswas a foreign na-
tion at the time. In point of fact, not onlydoes Congresshave exclusive power to
admit new states nto the union under Ar-
ticle IV, Section3 of the U.S. Constitu-
tion, but there is no limitation against
annexation of foreign nations withinthat section.
The self-appointed, would-be rulers
of Texas have been issuing ludicrous
statementswhich are at oddswith con-servative and constitutional principles
as well as with common sense.John
VanKirk's successor s "President"of
the Republic of Texas, Archie Lowe,remarked n an October 1 , I 996 press
release, The conditions n Texashave
reached he samepoint as Nazi Ger-many in 1939." This "Republic" has
appealed o the freedom-threatening
United Nations requestingUN. recogni-
tion ofTexas as an ndependent ation.
RT has also proclaimed amnestyand
full citizenship or all illegal aliens"do-
miciling on the soil of Texas or at least
six months." And it has encouraged ts
"cit izens" to form "common la w
courts" n every county n Texas.
Like the leaders of the RT provisional
govemment, he officers of the common aw
courts are not electedby anybody(except he
tiny groupsigning"citizenship"papers or
RT) and are not appointed by any elected
official. As already ndicated, one such"common law court" evidenced he bizarre
natureof suchbodiesby demanding or the
RT a judgment ot $93,492,827,008,096.00in gold against he federal government,
the International Monetary Fund, the Fed-
eral ReserveBanks, and he RomanCatho-
lic Church at the Vatican.
Richard Mclaren, RT "Chief Ambas-sador and General Consul," has served
time in the Midland County Detention
Centeron contempt of court charges elat-
ing to his unwillingness to cooperatewith
* If true, this would mean that the federal government
is not now violating the Constitution by exercisingextra-constitutionalpowers, since the governmentcan hardiy violate a law that has zLlreadybeen sus-pended. n truth, of course, he Constitution has notbeen suspended;t is waiting to be used.
8/14/2019 Patriot Beware
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 6/7
legitimate court hearing related to his
of bogus liens against the Stewart
Guarantee Company. Stewart Title
won a $1.8 million judgment
gainstMclaren plus a pefinanent njunc-
prohibiting Mclaren from initiating
Stewart Title,
ccording to the June 8, 1996 Dallas
More dangerously, he "Republic" has
irculatedpetitions in which signees re-State citizenship
nd pledge to "support and defend" the
of Texas. Although the RT has
ot yet been involved in any violence,
ontinued frustration resulting from its
to attain its goals could cause tsSecretaryof Defense" to initiate RT ac-
going beyond the issuing of bogus
through ts authorized"common lawMilitia organizations throughout
been allying themselveswithRT for the last several months. And
has threatened o use "bodilyfederal marshalsattempt o affest
him for fail ing to appear n court for
filed byRT. Moreover, federal officials could
RT forms renouncingU.S. citizen-
ship as evidenceof sedition in later court
if violence
rupts.Conservativeswould do well to ig-
ore theseself-appointedwanna-be ulers
f the RT.
There are 2,851,433 ellow Americans
cheduledfor[concentration
camp] ter-
on the RED LIST pick-up.
here are 3.374.69I fellow Americans
cheduled for termination on the BLUE
IST pick-up.... These figures are sub-
to expanding by as much as tenercent each by the time of FINAL
FEMA COM-
UTER BASES (34 NATTONWTDE)
ON JULY 22, 1996." (Jesus Reigns
inistries fax broadcast, July 30, 1996)
The above statement s one of a series
f ever-multiplying and varying accounts
hich embrace he idea that a "new world
rder" machine s poised o suck patrioticmericans into a waiting domestic gulag
system at any moment. Many of theseac-
ounts cite th e Beech Grove Amtrak
aintenance hopnear ndianapolis as he
site of one of these concentration camps.
Hn Nsw ArvrsRrcANnvestigated the mat-
er and reported n its October 31 1994 is-
sue that there is, indeed, nothing at the
mtrak repair shop to indicate that this
THENEWAMERICANFEBRUARY7, 1997
Concentration camps and secret UN bases on U.S.soil: Wild rumors, no proof,
site is any more a "detention center" in is overwhelming; the plan exists forwaiting than any other large public struc- the imprisonment of millions of U.S.ture. Nevertheless, iving Truth Minis- citizens.tries leader Texe Marrs has continued topush the Amtrak scenario n a videotapeentitled Concentration Camps n America.
Most concenfration camp theories can be
traced back to the late William R. Pabst ofHouston, who argued that concentration
camps were being set up in the United
Statesas early as 1976. Pabstcame o this
conclusionby taking a few genuinelyomi-nous federal rulings and then exfrapolating
ad nauseamabout the intent of the docu-ments. For example, Pabst noted that theArmy Field Manual refers to a "Civil Af-
fairs Operation" in conquered erritory as"Assumption of full or partial executive,
legislative, and judicial authority over acountry or area." That sounds easonable
enough; the Army should administer or-
der temporarily in captured oreign lands
to prevent ooting and possible errorism.
But here s how Pabst ntemreted t:
Nowhere in the manual does t ex-
clude this program from being putinto effect right here in the United
States.As a matterof fact, in Kearny,
New Jersey, he Civil Affairs group
went into that areaand practiced ak-
ing over that governmental unit....
Now, the Department of the Army
still maintains that all this is not for
the United States yet this training
continues here for us. The evidence
Pabst nferred an nsidiousmotive from
the fact that the Army Field Manual did
not explicitly state n that paragraph hat
Civil Affairs Operations should not be
conducted n the United States.But no
reasonableperson would expect to find
such a legalistic disclaimer in the defini-
tion sectionof a guidedesigned o explainmilitary concepts o recruits. The fact that
the Army has conducted raining exercises
for Civil Affairs Operations should not
alarm ci tizens, unless evidence existed
pointing to something involving morethan just training exercises. But Pabst
gave no other reasoning or evidence osupport his statement hat this somehow
constitutes overwhelming evidence that
millions of Americans are headed o con-
centration camps.
The federalbugabooswho would usher
U.S. citizens into concentrationcamps n
Pabst's ime were the now defunct Fed-
eral Law EnforcementAssistanceAdmin-istration and the U.S. Army; Pabst evenprovided a map of the United Statespin-
pointing where the concentration camps
would likely be. Today, in the eyes of
mostconcentrationcamp heorists he role
that was to be played by the LEAA and
the Army has been replaced by FinCEN,
multi-jurisdictional task forces, and the
United Nations. The names on the map
8/14/2019 Patriot Beware
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 7/7
gold-fringed flags fall within theexclusive province of the military.Besides, here is no statutorybasisfor alleging that flags change thelegal system applied in any court-room, military or civilian. The ap-plicable legal jurisdiction isdeterminedby other factors,such asmembership n the armedservices.
"Under the terms of ExecutiveOrder 11490, the President ofthe United States can declarethat a National Emergency existsand the Executive Branch can
may have chaaged,but the map itself has ... put the entire country under TO-not. The Red List/Blue List scenario s an- TAL MARTIAL LAW AND A MILI-other variation on the concentrationcamp TARY DrcrAToRsHIP," (unsourcedtheme basedon an anonymous"former photocopied circular, Kosmos Com-government official" who was inter- puter BBS cited as originator)viewed on short-wave adio. This statementdescribes airly accu-
The danger n uncritically acceptingun- rately what the practical effect of Execu-substantiatedumors about concentration tive Order 11490would have beenhad itcamps s that it leads
to the false conclu- been implemented. It never was, and itsion that our freedomsare already ost and was eventually repealed as t should havethat it is too late for lawful remedies.ob- been)as a result of the National Emergen-viously, if the crematoriaare readyfor the cies Termination Act of 19j6.constitutionalists,gun owners,and militia The President's power to issue execu-members,what is the use in working to tive orders arises under his authority aseducate he electorateor even working to- chiefexecutive ofthe federal governmentward the next election? t is, of course, rue (Article II, Section One, Clause One ofthat if we continue to lose our freedoms, the U.S. Constitution) and Commander-concentrationcamps on u.S. soil would in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II,eventuallybecomea reality. Ironically, al- section Two, clauseone). But thatauthor-lowing ourselves o be neutralizedby the ity is limited solely to administering thepresent alse rumors would only serve to law as passedby Congress and repellinghasten hat day. surprise nvasions,respectively.During
the 20th century, however, many Presi-
"The Maritime, Admiralty Flag is a dents have improperly issued executivegold fringed American Flag of War orders to createentirely new governmentpursuant to Army Regulation s840-10 agencies, uch as he FoodAdministrationOctober 1990under which all constitu- during World War I, the Office of Cen-tional rights are suspended." (F. Joe sorship during World War II, and theHollando North American Freedom Commission on Critical InfrastructureCouncil,October 17, 1996'l Protectionduring the Clinton Administra-
Mr. Holland's declarationof "fact" em- tion. Mr. Clinton hasalso ssuedexecutivebraces a number of erroneousnotions. orders o bail outthe economies fforeignFirst, it assumes hat the U.S. Constitution nations and to place u.S. soldiers underand the rights it protects can be negated United Nations control.by military law; that is not so. Second, t Clearly there is no authority under the
incorrectly assumes hat Army regulations Constitution for the President o createen-can negate congressionally and state- tire federal agenciesby sheeredict, andpassed aws and supplant civilian law in there certainly is a constitutional prohibi-civilian courlrooms; they cannot. tion upon any rights protected under the
It is true that Army regulationsdo au- Constitution from being infringed duringthorize gold-fringed flags for "indoor evena time of nationalemergency exceptdisplay and for use in [military] ceremo- for the suspensionof habeascorpus). Butnies and parades" and that a "Military the practical limitations on the power ofCourtroom" is among the approved in- presidentialexecutive ordershave histori-door uses. But that does not mean that callv been defined bv what the other two
34
branchesof governmentarewilling to tol-erate. Executive orders,whether calledExecutiveOrders or PresidentialDecisionDirectives, continue to function in theUnited Statesasde acto legislation.
The SupremeCourt hasoverturnedsev-eral executive orders as unconstitutional,most notably in the case of YoungstownCo. v. Sawyer. In Youngstown, he HighCourt overturnedHarry Truman's Execu-
tive Order 10340, which was an attemptto seize he entire steel ndustry. Congresshas also overturned numerous executiveorders by legislation over the years, buthas more often than notlet de acro presi-dential law-making through executivede-cree continue unhindered. Worse still,Congresshas exhibited an increasing en-dency to write legislation that allowspresidential "flexibility" to proclaim ex-ecutiveorders n a variety of matters.
* * *
While the false statements examined
above can be exposed as factually inac-curate or wildly misleading, many falsesolutions are more a result of poor judg-
ment. Survivalists who think militias willsave themselves rom the new world or-der overestimate their own firepowerand create a fertile ground for loose can-nonsor federalagentsprovocateurswithinthe milit ia movement. Such elementscould be responsible for creating a per-
ceived threat from the "radical right" thatcould then be used as justification foroutright gun confiscation and other po-lice-state measures.Fully Informed Juryadvocatessell their movementas a pana-cea for all unjust laws, when it can neverbe clear how juries will rule on a particu-
lar case.
In order to avoid the pitfalls offalse so-lutions for a runaway federalgovernment,
solid judgment is required. Wild state-ments must be checked out and not betaken at face value, especially when thestatementsoriginate from a commentatoror organization without a proven trackrecord of reliability. Even if the factualstatements prove to be technically true,
considerationneeds o be given as towhether the facts support the conclusion.For example,although tax rebels may ac-curately quote various court decisions,their generally brief citations fail to sup-port their conclusions hat the income taxis voluntary and need not be paid. If con-stitutionalists nsist upon reliable informa-tion and exercise sound judgment, theywill rarely be led astray. I
THENEWAMERICANFEBRUARY7, 1997
Are weon the "fringe"of tyranny?