Earthlinggb's Blog

Don’t talk to me about “Democracy”!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on September 27, 2014

Not that democracy is perfect anyhow but we, in the west and in the UK do not have it!

So if anyone talks to you about our “great democracy” and “Who are you voting for?” or “What are you voting for?” please, do me a favour, laugh in their face! They’re just ignorant bastards.

all-seeing-eye-u-k

Royal Prerogative

HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 485
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.20 am
§Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch’s power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.

Blackstone’s 18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” referred to the prerogative as that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity”— an arrangement that Blackstone described as in its nature singular and eccentrical”. In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens’ rights.

The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe: this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn”.—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.] My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.

The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between 486 subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.

In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?

The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed: it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise. He noted that there had been “practically no authority” on the matter since 1688.

The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote: In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge. He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says: the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed. He also says: The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking. We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.

The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown’s right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

487 Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient “prerogative of perfection”—that is, “The King can do no wrong.” What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.

Munro concludes: Behind the phrase “royal prerogative” lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised. It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.

In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said: It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.] It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker’s job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.

The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1993/apr/21/royal-prerogative#S6CV0223P0_19930421_HOC_685

 

Tony Benn BBC quote

 

THE SECURITY SERVICE

HC Deb 17 January 1989 vol 145 cc180-238

Mr. Benn The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who 193 should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word “security”.

The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?

What is it about the Security Service’s political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces’ political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.

If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.

194 The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.

Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person”. That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.

It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver’s television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain’s armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.

The concept of the “enemy within” is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the “enemy within” became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.

I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright’s story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.

 

Mr. Benn The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.

I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.

 

Mr. Winnick Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§Mr. Benn I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, “Don’t go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service.” One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

196
§Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people’s democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.

 

Mr. Benn That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members’ research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
§Mr. Tony Banks Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, “What is parliamentary democracy?” It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying Why does treason never prosper?

Here’s the reason:

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the 197 sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.

Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.

In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.

The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1989/jan/17/the-security-service#S6CV0145P0_19890117_HOC_315

 

hitler

on behalf of

 

Salmond fishing

 

Trump’s America: Destroyed by Executive Orders!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on November 7, 2011

So you love your new President’s Executive Orders?

In a few years’ time you will understand what they were all about you STUPID people!

But meanwhile, in your ignorance and false hope (just a “mirror” of Obama’s which you also fell for) you’re supporting the destruction of your country.

But hey, I know you’ll never believe or admit to it. But then, I don’t say I’m more intelligent than you (not at all), I just say I’ve done a vast amount more research to understand it.

(And for those of you who may be new to this site – I am neither American NOR liberal, nor right wing – I don’t buy into it all because I see the “show” which it is)

America: Not too long from now, you are in for a rude awakening. However, it will be subtle while you, strangely, buy into it. They’ve won – they’ve divided you sufficiently to be able to take the next steps.

US President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders in the Hall of Heroes at the Department of Defense Friday, Jan. 27, 2017 in Arlington, Va. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS) 1196704

US President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders in the Hall of Heroes at the Department of Defense Friday, Jan. 27, 2017 in Arlington, Va. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS) 1196704

 

Dear America,

It was nice knowing you! You never quite managed Independence (even though you may have thought you did but then you know how immensely deceptive these people are now and have always been) but you were the closest thing to freedom – note I do not use that disgusting, deceptive term “democracy” – that the planet ever had. However, even all the way back to George Washington, you were never quite free. But that detail, perhaps, is for another time, another blog and will take a long, arduous explanation.

How America was founded – the principles in a nutshell:

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Jacob G. Hornberger, November 2001

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Regardless of one’s judgment concerning the type of government that the Constitution brought into existence in 1787, no one can deny that it was truly the most unusual and radical in history.

Consider: With the tragic exception of slavery, the United States was a society in which people could, by and large, engage in any occupation or economic enterprise without a government license, permit, or regulation.

Where people could travel anywhere in the world without restriction (no passports) and trade with whomever they pleased without the permission of their government officials.

Where people could accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without government interference, because the Constitution did not permit the government to levy taxes on income.

Where people were free to do whatever they wanted with their own money — save, spend, donate, invest, hoard, or even destroy it.

Where government was not permitted to take care of people — no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education grants, or foreign aid.

With a few exceptions (e.g., 1850s Massachusetts), there were no compulsory public (i.e., government) school systems.

No wars on drugs, poverty, or wealth.

And open borders for the free immigration of people from anywhere in the world.

Like I say, regardless of how you might feel about the political and economic philosophy of the Founders of our country, no one can deny that the political and economic system that they brought into existence was the most unusual and radical in history.

Our Founders’ philosophy toward foreign affairs was also an unusual one. A primary responsibility of the U.S. government, they believed, was to protect the nation from invasion or attack and not involve itself in the affairs or conflicts of other nations.

The Founders clearly understood that horrible things would be seen all over the world, such as brutal tyrannies and cruel dictatorships — after all, they themselves had only recently been the victims of the brutality and cruelty of the British Empire.

But they believed that the best gift that America could give to the world would be a model for a free, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous society — a beacon for the rest of the world to follow. And they believed that that goal would be not be served if their government had the imperial power to straighten out messes all over the world.

Here’s what George Washington counseled to all succeeding generations of Americans in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns…. Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

Celebrating American freedom on July 4, 1821, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives setting forth the vision of the American republic:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart…. She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence … the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world.

Thus, when our 18th- and 19th-century ancestors celebrated the Fourth of July each year, the concept of freedom that they were celebrating was totally different from the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth. The freedom they celebrated involved a way of life in which government had little power to take their money, regulate their peaceful activities, or take care of them. It was also a freedom arising out of their government’s noninterference in the conflicts of foreign nations.

No one can deny that somewhere along the way, America changed direction, both domestically and internationally. How about a national debate as to which vision — the vision of Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, or that of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon — should guide our nation into its third century of existence?

Meanwhile, let’s look at the reality behind what is termed an “Executive Order” by your President:

Executive Orders: The authority to use Executive Orders isn’t even provided for in the US Constitution! It’s clear that when a President is sworn in he is the Executive and has the power to ensure the law is faithfully/properly executed but the following is essentially all that refers to the Executive power of the President within your Constitution….

“The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

But that does not, in any way, suggest that he has any power to create laws and yet that is what all these EOs do!

The Constitution clearly means that he ensures law (as created by the CONSTITUTION not him!) is executed properly! They have seriously gone way beyond their powers and remit!

Washington himself was the first to issue an Executive Order. Unfortunately, however – and rather ironically, it was he who created the precedent so early into this Republic governed by the rule of law NOT Executive Order!

President Rutherford Hayes once warned that although  American chief executives had to that point been conservative men wedded both to  precedent and to modesty in the exercise of presidential power, a future  president committed to concentrating power in his hands could make of the office  what he wished.

Attorney William J. Olson spoke to those gathered for Y2K and the Presidency, the May 8 conference sponsored by The Conservative Caucus, concerning the unconstitutional use of Executive Orders. Excerpts from his talk follow:

“President Washington issued the first Proclamation; it was…to declare a Day of National Thanksgiving. It was…pursuant to some Congressional action… certainly that’s a Proclamation that’s perfectly legitimate. …

“Even his Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation…was pursuant to a 1792 statute.”

“But then we get to the Neutrality Proclamation, which did not cite any Congressional or statutory authority. It sought to impose penalties on U.S. citizens who would deal with European powers at war. …it was viewed by others in government as an abuse of Executive authority.

And, when prosecutions were begun under that statute, the
court said, ‘No, that does not have the force of law, Mr. President. That is your opinion. You do not have the Congress’s concurrence.
…’ The Congress then passed the law, and the prosecutions continued. But in any event, it was very instructive time because people had then read the Constitution. …”

[Note this last proclamation forbade any dealings with European powers at war. A GOOD call actually considering the fact that the Bush patriarch and so many other so called “Americans” (actually all globalists no matter whether they hold an American passport) funded the Nazi war machine even after war was declared and so many of the Allied Powers troops were slaughtered by the “machine” – well oiled let’s say – which these so called “patriots” funded. Why is America (and yes Britain too) so stupid an sleepy-headed to acknowledge the facts that our governments and their Corporate/Banking paymasters play both sides and kill our own?]

Before leaving George Washington however, it is immensely enlightening to read incredibly prophetic words from the man regarding the introduction of political parties – Republican and Democrat not existing until after Washington’s Presidency (although there had been Federalists and Anti Federalists there were no specific parties):

The Dangers of Political Parties

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.
[Note: It is then obvious from this that the Federalists exist today in the form of Republicans while the Democrats have been more aligned with the French/German EU concept albeit that in the past 10 years or so Democrat and Republican, just as with Labour and Conservative in the UK, have been far more strongly aligned. Such is the influence of the real powers: Bankers, Bilderberg etc. There is still this split however to a degree whereby, in Europe, the British Conservative party, on the whole, still wish to have the greater say in Europe than the Labour Party which ties in with the Federalist/Republican attitude toward the UK and Europe. They all want the EU, it is just there is a little “negotiation” going on as to who has the greatest power within it. I am sure the Pilgrim Society will be working hard on this!]

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.

Moreover, Washington makes the case that “the alternate domination” of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and “is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” From Washington’s perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and “gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

Back to Executive Orders:

“Presidential executive orders are a particular type of presidential document that has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute. There is no law defining “executive order”, the meaning of the term has varied over the years. Prior to 1936, a document was an “executive order” because the president himself designated it as such. On February 18, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7298 prescribing a uniform manner of preparing executive orders”.

guide_prespapers.html

Isn’t it interesting to read how the University of Oregon puts this? “has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute”.

The reality is nothing of the kind. There is NO authority derived from the Constitution or a Federal Statute whatsoever as we saw earlier. They even indicate this when they say  “There is no law defining “executive order””. We have to then assume that American law students just accept this on face value! Not very prudent of them then and indicates a concerning lack of diligence on their part!

Can Executive Orders be Overridden or Withdrawn?

The president can amend or retract an executive at any time. The president may also issue an executive order superseding an existing one. New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, let’s be clear here: Executive Orders are NOT “Law” at all in ANY shape or form. They are purely the wishes of the incumbent President. Period! That is purely and simply a dictator’s dream!

Theodore Roosevelt did not merely extend executive prerogative here or  there; he put forth a full-fledged philosophy of the presidency that attempted  to justify his dramatic expansion of that office. He contended that the  president, by virtue of his election by the nation as a whole, possessed a  unique claim to be the representative of the entire American people – a position  taken by Andrew Jackson during the 1830s and for which he was sharply rebuked by  John C. Calhoun. Each member of the executive branch, but especially the  president, “was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do  all he could for the people.” He could, therefore, “do anything that the needs  of the nation demanded” unless expressly prohibited in the Constitution. “Under  this interpretation of executive power,” TR later reflected, “I did and caused  to be done many things not previously done. … I did not usurp power, but I did  greatly broaden the use of executive power.”

Since TR believed himself to be doing the people’s will,  and since he believed his own rhetoric that portrayed the president as the  people’s unique representative in American government, his need to fulfill this  special mission overrode concerns about the separation of powers. He remarked  privately that in the United States, “as in any nation which amounts to  anything, those in the end must govern who are willing actually to do the work  of governing; and in so far as the Senate becomes a merely obstructionist body  it will run the risk of seeing its power pass into other hands.”

It was TR who pioneered rule by executive order as a  governing style among American presidents. Many Americans rightly howled during  the 1990s when Bill Clinton’s aide Paul Begala famously said of executive  orders, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” But Clinton, who once  called Theodore Roosevelt his favorite Republican president, was only exercising  a power that TR had made a major feature of the presidential office early in the  century.

To appreciate the transformation that occurred in  American government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by  the presidents of the late 19th century. Presidents Hayes and Garfield each  issued none. Arthur issued three, Grover Cleveland (first term) six, Benjamin  Harrison four, Cleveland (second term) 71, and McKinley 51. TR issued  1,006.

Now, it is true that TR served nearly two terms. But  that figure is so much higher than that of his predecessors that it reveals a  vastly different philosophy of the presidency from that held by those who  preceded him.

To take just one domestic example, TR intervened in the  United Mine Workers strike in 1902, ordering the mine owners to agree to  arbitration. Should they instead remain obstinate, he threatened to order the  Army to take over and operate the coalmines. When informed that no  constitutional authorization existed for such a brazen act of confiscation, he  replied, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told the Washington  Post that when the Bush administration entered office, it was determined to  reinvigorate the presidency and reverse the steady reduction in executive power  and prerogative that had persisted since Watergate. But what reduction could the  vice president have had in mind? “The vice president,” noted Sen. John E. Sununu  (R-N.H.), “may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has  somehow lost power over the last 30 years.”

Whether or not the vice president was correct in his  analysis of the state of the presidency in the year 2000, there can be no  question that since then George W. Bush has dramatically expanded the powers of  the president – primarily though not exclusively in matters pertaining to the  war on terror.

One of the most notorious examples involved the torture  of prisoners, a power the administration claimed in the face of law and  international agreements to the contrary. “The assertion in the various legal  memoranda that the President can order the torture of prisoners despite statutes  and treaties forbidding it was another reach for presidential hegemony,” wrote  Anthony Lewis in the New York Review of Books. “The basic premise of the  American constitutional system is that those who hold power are subject to the  law…Bush’s lawyers seem ready to substitute something like the divine right of  kings.”

The Limits of Presidential Power:  Domestic Surveillance

Arguably the greatest controversy of all was the  revelation at the end of 2005 that the Bush administration had engaged in  domestic surveillance without the necessary warrants. James Bamford, author of  two books on the National Security Agency, points out the pertinent aspects of  what would appear to be the relevant law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance  Act (FISA), passed in 1978. According to Bamford, then-Attorney General Griffin  Bell testified before the intelligence committee that FISA acknowledged no “inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance.”

As Bell himself put it, “This bill specifically states  that the procedures in the bill are the exclusive means by which electronic  surveillance may be conducted.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush administration  officials spoke again and again of the president’s inherent powers. But the  pertinent statute in this case disclaims any such powers and requires that the  president proceed according to the guidelines set out by Congress, which  involves securing warrants from a special court. As things stand, the president  is claiming a right to engage in surveillance of any American, unrestrained by  any institutional check, in the service of the war on terror – a war that by its  very nature must go on indefinitely and, indeed, that we can never really know  is truly over.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the  reason the administration did not seek to revise FISA to give the president the  clear and unambiguous power to order these wiretaps was that even a Republican  Congress would not have gone along. In a Dec. 19 press briefing, the attorney  general said, “We have had discussions with Congress in the past – certain  members of Congress – as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to  adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be  difficult, if not impossible.”

The administration’s claim, as set forth by the attorney  general, is that Congress implicitly agreed to such wiretaps when in the days  following Sept. 11 it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators and  their allies. Of course, if Congress really had authorized them, it is not clear  why it would be so difficult for the administration to persuade Congress to  amend FISA accordingly in light of this permission.

The Limits of  Presidential Power: The New  Deal

Gonzales’s argument calls to mind H.L. Mencken’s 1937 “Constitution for the New Deal,” a satirical rewrite of the U.S Constitution,  which says of the attorney general, “It shall be his duty to provide legal  opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the  President.”

As the controversy over the wiretapping developed, it  was only a matter of time before the “even Lincoln did it” argument would be  heard. GOP apologists did not disappoint, reminding Americans that Honest Abe  engaged in massive violations of civil liberties while president. But Tom  DiLorenzo raises the proper reply to such claims in the form of remarks by  Supreme Court Justice David Davis – a personal friend of Lincoln – in the 1866  case Ex Parte Milligan: “The constitution of the United States is a law for  rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its  protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No  doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit  of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great  exigencies of government.”

As DiLorenzo suggests, if the government were to be  given carte blanche during wartime, all that would be necessary to whittle away  the people’s liberties would be to concoct – or to provoke – an endless series  of crises.

This is all deeply disturbing, to be sure. But to hear  much of the Left tell it, the presidency of George W. Bush is a bizarre  aberration in the history of the presidency and more or less sui generis. I have  no objection to those who describe the Bush presidency as utterly disastrous,  and I do not mean to excuse the president by recalling that the ideological and  institutional roots of the imperial presidency extend back at least a century.  My point, rather, is that a bit of history can enrich our  understanding.

Now, with all that in mind, perhaps you would wish to read the following Executive Order (just one of MANY bad ones which has been formulated to destroy America) written by George H.W. Bush:

?pid=23625#axzz1cxzNkkB0

He put America on sale to the highest bidder. While REMEMBER, all of that infrastructure (and natural resources) was built by you, the American people and funded by your tax dollars! The important Executive Orders for the people truly in charge never get repealed and the ones that do not quite do the job, get amended.

And note:

“Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No.
12612”
Federalism = “Monarchism” = Despotism
And now, it is so ingrained into your psyche that the Federal Government is all there ever has been and ever shall be that you have lost sight of what it SHOULD have been! You therefore, have lost your liberty and freedom America as so mant said you would. But it’s been out of sheer ignorance and misplaced pride. But pride comes before a fall.
The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised “monarchic” power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than Federal Government (and in the Federalist papers James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington.

Noted Anti-Federalists

One can also argue that Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but that his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

And who is it, do you think, who demands all of these Executive Orders and for what purpose?

It’s VERY simple. When you wish to destroy the sovereignty of a nation which has a working Constitution based upon the rule of law, you ensure you can change the law.

My question is: How do you make a “Conspiracy Theory” out of a blatant confession?

Rockefeller’s 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” he wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

A child could understand this and say “There you go dad! There’s the culprit! Well at least the main “American” one!”

Oh the Irony!

As you cheer your new President on, because his Executive Orders are “stiffing” (so you believe) the liberals and the NWO, you’re actually promoting the death of that Constitution you conservatives, Republicans and Tea-Partyists say you love!

This “game” of theirs is FAR deeper than it seems you can fathom.

While, what do you do when you recognise the public are on to you? You give them a “leader” and promote him by attacking him endlessly and viciously because then the people BELIEVE he’s working for them! Such a simple, reverse psychology tactic. And your man Trump is one great actor!

How about that for sheer stupidity?

NB: Portions of this blog have been taken from various sources including Wikipedia and The Daily Reckoning.