Constitutional Decree – Enforceable – the 41sr Amendment

General of the Armies Executive Authority

60 ABC - War Power Act & the D.O.E. Art. 441-Y

From: DBA Jesus Christ - G.O.T.A. & C.J.S.

To: The Union Forces

On 10 October 2017, I turned over $250 Trillion, that is $250,000,000,000,000 to the U.S> Treasury., while in Augusta, GA. Lt. Gen. Dante Bush be my witness. Plus we recovered $10 Trillion in Gold here and another $10 trillion in Gold Bullion in South America.

On that day, two Federal Police at the VAMC Augusta, GA, downtown tried to kill me, they beat me down and then threw me in Detention without charges for about 2 months.

The Account Number: Can be found by matching this ATM Card Number, which is still active, you can put money in, but you cannot take it back out.

CHASE Liquid Debit VISA: 4736 2282 0307 6567 expire: 03/19

Name on card: Frank P. Jones

Why? I do not sell dope or launder dope money.

I own My Florida, Corporation, INC. I own every corporation in the world, in fact, I own the trademark Corporation, yet I and my children have not a pot to piss in?

They own me a lot of money, yet I AM almost pennies? Tomorrow is the defining moment. If I do not get funds placed into my account by tomorrow, but Thursday, we are going to Squatter the state of Georgia and this is a constitutional decree.

While In New York City, I had my warehouse emptied of enough dope to kill the whole world 10 Times over. I had that dope thrown into the RED SEA.

Sun Press Building on 8th street adjacent to Vernon Blvd near Con Ed

It was filled with dope Intel Suggest

Why? I AM against dope and I told them if you want it, go and get it.

How to Squater by the Law?

1. Change the lock.

2. The Two Bucket Rule. When a home is built the plumbing is already paid for, to live in a home, you must have running water. Simply pure water into the toilet. Make sure you have buckets of water. Operation Water Buffalo.

3. Put up a picket fence or simply best explained, let everyone know you are there. Youn cannot pretend you are not there, but must claim the home as yours,

4. Please be aware The Anti-Star Wars Act and all Anti-Terror Acts within D.O.E. Art. 441-Y are in effect, to include the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Understanding Squatters Rights in Georgia

Adverse possession, which are also called squatter's rights, in Georgia are broken down into two categories of property. Land may be considered developed, which means there is a livable structure on the land. Undeveloped land is land with no livable structures. Under Georgia law, squatter's have the right to take possession of this property if they occupy it without permission for a specific period of time.

1. Property that is neglected by an owner and occupied without permission by a squatter for 7 years or more will qualify for adverse possession.

2. Undeveloped land must be occupied in some fashion without permission for a minimum of 20 years... Continued after G.O.T.A Constitutional Decree Explained.

The publicly displayed symbol of authority is one star in the center with five stars around it, making it clear no general is equal in authority to G.O.T.A. Wherefore all other Generals are commanders, G.O.T.A. is the Commission. Wherefore the official symbol of G.O.T.A. is the perfect square in the center and it has 5 stars around it. The 5 stars is the symbol of execution or the authority to execute and the perfect square which is the letter Zulu at 31 degrees vectors both top and bottom, is the symbol of perfection.

Wherefore G.O.T.A. is the highest military ranking authority eternal and is also the Chief Justice Supreme, whom is placed over the One World Government, the Union of the Universe, at the highest Court, the one chosen not only to practice law, but is the Law, wherefore, G.O.T.A. and C.J.S. is the Law and the Law is the Union State Constitution Under God and the Union State of Chaka Zulu, is the Sovereign Nation of God is Real, which is the Nation of the Universe, whom is the World Subsidization Currency over the Preservationist Economic Structure and it is insured by the Government.

The insuring Institution of the Preservationist Economic structure is the Law and the law is the U.S.C.U.G., and God is Chaka Zulu and the law is the U.S. Constitution under God. Wherefore the Law is to protect, Society, the People, the production process and property, wherefore G.O.T.A. has Executive Authority, wherefore C.J.S. is the Word and the Word is God. This is essence places G.O.T.A., above the Law, wherefore G.O.T.A., is the Law and the authority of God is insured and backed by the Government, being the Military Powers of the Universe, in the protection of the Subsidization Currency, being Commodity, equality and Assets trading and the Trusts and all Insured transaction by G.O.T.A. and verified banking institutions by the O.I.G. under the Universal Credit Union Association, the U.C.U.A..

Wherefore the Authority of G.O.T.A. is boundless, he has the right to travel anywhere in the Universe at any time, for any amount of time in duration and is the Universe Citizen and Authority and is not bound by any Locale. Wherefore, the One World Government is one union of many nations or could be said, one nation under one Constitution, G.O.T.A., is the executive authority over the Constitution and the War Power Act makes it clear, this authority is without time limits or limitations of any kind. Verification information of G.O.T.A. is encrypted within his REAL ID and military ID.

D.B.A. Jesus Christ G.O.T.A. & C.S.J.

The difficulty for squatters in the adverse possession law is that the owner of the property cannot make any attempt to legally claim their ownership over that period of time. As long as the property owner intercedes before the statute of limitations kicks in, all claims to adverse possession rights are considered null and void. This intercession can be as simple as a rental offer to those living on the property.

Adverse Possession Applies In Other Instances As Well

Squatter's rights in Georgia also apply when there aren't even traditional squatters occupying a property. In one instance, adverse possession shifted property lines in Atlanta when one homeowner installed a brick pathway between houses. The other property owner did not realize the land was theirs instead of their neighbor's and in 20 years, with continuous use, the homeowner who installed the path filed a motion of adverse possession and was granted the land.

In another circumstance, an open field was used for gardening freely over the course of 20 years. It was used openly and the property owner made no effort to claim their ownership of the land. The person who openly occupied that land for 20 years, growing crops on it, filed a claim of adverse possession and was granted the deed. Property owners must periodically check their open lands to make sure it is not being openly used without permission. Vacant homes must be checked and an effort to claim possession of them made should unauthorized parties be found there. In doing so, the squatter's rights will be nullified and no adverse possession event will take place.

The Fair Housing Act

The Fair Housing Act is a federal act in the United States intended to protect the buyer or renter of a dwelling from seller or landlord discrimination. Its primary prohibition makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent to, or negotiate with any person because of that person’s inclusion in a protected class.[1] The goal is a unitary housing market in which a person’s background (as opposed to financial resources) does not arbitrarily restrict access. Calls for open housing were issued early in the twentieth century, but it was not until after World War II that concerted efforts to achieve it were undertaken.

The legislation was the culmination of a civil rights campaign against housing discrimination in the United States and was approved by President Lyndon B. Johnson one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Fair Housing Act was enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and codified at 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619 , with penalties for violation at 42 U.S.C. 3631. It is enforced by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development .[2]

The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlaws:

 Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

 Discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.

 Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, disability or national origin.

 Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person’s enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.

When the Fair Housing Act was first enacted, it prohibited discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin.[3] Sex was added as a protected characteristic in 1974.[4] In 1988, disability and familial status (the presence or anticipated presence of children under 18 in a household) were added (further codified in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).[3] In certain circumstances, the law allows limited exceptions for discrimination based on sex, religion, or familial status.[5]

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is the federal executive department with the statutory authority to administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has delegated fair housing enforcement and compliance activities to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and HUD’s Office of General Counsel. FHEO is one of the United States’ largest federal civil rights agencies. It has a staff of more than 600 people located in 54 offices around the United States. As of August 2017, the head of FHEO is Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Anna Maria Farias, whose appointment was confirmed on August 3, 2017.[10]

The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlaws:
 Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

 Discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.

 Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, disability or national origin.

In 2017, a federal judge ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes under the Fair Housing Act.[6][7] As of May 2018, there is an additional pending effort to amend the Fair Housing Act to make this explicit (HR 1447).[8] In a meeting on May 16, 2018 with the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who is campaigning for his 16th term, said he believed that homeowners should be allowed to refuse to sell their home to gay and lesbian homebuyers. NAR disagreed and withdrew its endorsement of the Congressman over the matter.[9]

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is the federal executive department with the statutory authority to administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has delegated fair housing enforcement and compliance activities to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and HUD’s Office of General Counsel. FHEO is one of the United States’ largest federal civil rights agencies. It has a staff of more than 600 people located in 54 offices around the United States. As of August 2017, the head of FHEO is Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Anna Maria Farias, whose appointment was confirmed on August 3, 2017.[10]

The Fair Housing Act has been strengthened since its adoption in 1968, but enforcement continues to be a concern among housing advocates. According to a 2010 evaluation of Analysis of Impediments (AI) reports done by the Government Accountability Office, enforcement is particularly inconsistent across local jurisdictions.[11]

 Housing discrimination (United States)

 Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper Village#Controversy - Post-war project that was involved in controversy for refusing to admit African-Americans.

 Buchanan v. Warley

 Department of Fair Employment and Housing

ecretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity , whose appo廕ུ耀簐

槪 r Housing and Equal Opportunity , whose appo廕ུ耀簐槪 Civil rights campaign in Seattle (Fair housing campaign in the 1960s)

 Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity[1]

Active duty service members:

Home of Record

Active duty service members have always been able to keep one state as their state of legal residency (usually their Home of Record) for tax purposes even when they move frequently on military orders. A state of legal residence (SLR) is also considered their “domicile” or “resident” state.

In the United States Military, there is a difference between the terms "Home of Record," and "Legal Residence." Home of Record and Legal Residence may, or may not, be the same address. The Home of Record is the place where one was living when they entered the military (or, re-enlisted in the military, if one chooses). This term is used to determine travel entitlements when one separates from the military. It has nothing to do with voting or paying taxes, registering vehicles, nor any of the other privileges of state residency.

And, the "Home of Record" can only be changed if there is a break in service of more than one day, or to correct an error.

Now, "Legal Residency," or "domicile", on the other hand, refers to the place where a military member intends to return to and live after discharge or retirement, and which they consider their "permanent home." Legal residency determines what local (state) tax laws a military member is subject to, and in which local (city, county, state) elections they may vote in. Because military members may have "legal residence" in one state, but be stationed in a different state, the Service members Civil Relief Act, allows military members to pay taxes, register vehicles, vote, etc., in their "state of legal residence," rather than the state they are stationed in.

Changing Legal Residence?

Can a military member change their "legal residence" anytime they want, and therefore avoid paying state taxes? Not quite. Under the law, "legal residence" is the place that the military member intends to live after they separate or retire from the military. It's the place that they consider their "permanent home."

Depending on their service, and local policies, an active duty military member can change their "legal residence" by visiting their local base legal office and/or base finance office and completing a DD Form 2058, State of Legal Residence Certificate.

However, the military is required by regulation to ensure that military members are not changing their "legal residence" for the sole purpose of obtaining a tax advantage. Therefore, when changing your "legal residence," military officials at the legal office (or finance office) may require some degree of proof that you consider the new state to be your "permanent home."

Police Actions in Home Land:

Police action. In military/security studies and international relations, "police action" is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war. Since World War II, formal declarations of war have been rare, especially actions conducted by developed nations in connection with the Cold War.

In military/security studies and international relations, "police action" is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.

Since World War II, formal declarations of war have been rare, especially actions conducted by developed nations in connection with the Cold War. Rather, nations involved in military conflict (especially the major-power nations) sometimes describe the conflict by fighting the war under the auspices of a "police action" to show that it is a limited military operation different from total war.

The earliest appearance of the phrase was in 1883, referring to attempts by Netherlands forces and English forces to liberate the 28-man crew of the SS Nisero, who were held hostage.^[1] The Dutch term politionele acties (police actions) was used for this. It was also used to imply a formal claim of sovereignty by colonial powers, such as in the military actions of the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and other allies during the Indonesian National Revolution (1945–1949) and the Malayan Emergency.

Examples of "police actions"[edit]

The two major Dutch military offensives, of July 1947 and December 1948, during the Indonesian National Revolution were referred to by the Dutch government as the first and second "police actions".^[2] The 1948 invasion, by India, of Hyderabad State, code named Operation Polo, was referred to as a police action by the government.^[^{citation
needed}^]

In the early days of the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman referred to the United States response to the North Korean invasion as a "police action" under the aegis of the United Nations.^[3]

Shortly the secession of Biafra in 1967, the Nigerian government launched a "police action" to retake the secessionist territory beginning the Nigerian civil war

The Vietnam War and the Kargil War were undeclared wars and hence are sometimes described as police actions.

The Soviet–Afghan War was an undeclared war and hence also could be described as a police action, especially since the initial troop deployments into Afghanistan were at the request of the Afghan government.

In other events, the Congress (of the United States) had not made a formal declaration of war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary, with or without the approval of Congress. The legal legitimacy of each of these actions was based upon declarations such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Iraq Resolution by Congress and various United Nations resolutions. Nonetheless, Congressional approval has been asserted by means of funding appropriations or other authorizations as well as the contested War Powers Resolution.

Under international law[edit]

Further information: Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter § Article 42, and Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter

Police actions are authorized specifically by the Security Council under Article 53 (for regional action) or Article 42 (for global action). In both cases, the term used in the Charter text (English) is 'enforcement action'; the term 'police action' is not used.

Appropriate use of the term[edit]

Use of the term does not appear to have gained currency outside of the limited arena of justification of military action:^[^{citation
needed}^] for example, the U.S. Navy refers to the Korean conflict as the Korean War, and when they refer to police action, they surround the term in quotation marks.^[4]^[^{improper
synthesis?}^]

Similarly, a plaque at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial refers to the Vietnam Conflict as a war, not a police action, even though it was undeclared.

Use of the term "police action" is intended to imply either a claim of formal sovereignty or of authority to intervene militarily at a nation's own discretion, typically unilaterally or with a small group of nations. This is often done through the United Nations or by asserting that the military operation is defensive or humanitarian in nature such as the United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti or the Invasion of Grenada.

Veterans often display a high degree of disdain for the term "police action", as it somehow implies that their sacrifices were not legitimate and perhaps also that they are not even veterans of a true "war"

Martial Law

Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civilian functions of government, especially in response to a temporary emergency such as invasion or major disaster, or in an occupied territory.^[1][2]

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand in 2006 and 2014, and Egypt in 2013); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, 2009's Iranian Green Movement that led to the takeover by Revolutionary Guards); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); or to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters; however, most countries use a different legal construct, such as a state of emergency.

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts, and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan, the recovery and reconstruction of the former Confederate States of America during Reconstruction Era in the United States of America following the American Civil War, and German occupation of northern France between 1871 and 1873 after the Treaty of Frankfurt ended the Franco-Prussian War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews; the suspension of civil law, civil rights, and habeas corpus; and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

n the United States, martial law has been used in a limited number of circumstances, such as directly after a foreign attack, such as Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans, after major disasters, such as the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 or the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, by renegade local leaders seeking to avoid arrest, such as Nauvoo, Illinois during the Illinois Mormon War, or Utah during the Utah War, or in response to chaos associated with protests and mob action, such as the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike, or mob actions against the Freedom Riders.

The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law.^[28] Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the Civil Rights Movement, but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as clear as that between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and that is one of the keys, as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law.

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

Habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔːrpəs/; Medieval Latin meaning literally "that you have the body")^[1] is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.^[2]

The writ of habeas corpus is known as "the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement",^[Note
1] being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest. It is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official, for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond his or her authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called habeas corpus.^[3] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ("protection of freedom").

Habeas corpus has certain limitations. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course.^[Note
2] It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law, then habeas corpus may not be a useful remedy. In some countries, the writ has been temporarily or permanently suspended under the pretext of war or state of emergency.^[^{further
explanation needed}^]

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".^[4]

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent must prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Thye 2. The Constitutional Powers of the Presidency

With what types of constitutional powers is the president endowed? How have these powers changed over time?

Scholars cite three main types of presidential powers: expressed powers, delegated powers, and inherent powers.
- Expressed powers are those powers specifically granted to the president in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, of the Constitution.
- Given that Article II declares that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” when Congress enacts laws, it delegates power to the president and the executive branch to implement its will; such delegated powers constitute an important, expandable source of presidential strength.
- Inherent powers are those that presidents claim that are not expressed in the Constitution but are inferred from it; they are most often asserted during times of war or national emergency.
The president’s expressed powers, as defined by Article II, Sections 2 and 3, include military, judicial, diplomatic, executive, and legislative powers.
- As “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,” the president possesses military powers and heads the nation’s security and intelligence agencies; these powers also include deploying troops to enforce federal decisions and declarations of “states of emergency.” In response to presidential unilateralism, in 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution.
- The president exercises judicial power when he or she grants pardons, reprieves, and amnesty.
- As “head of state,” the president has the diplomatic powers to make treaties (though their ratification requires Senate approval), receive ambassadors, and create executive agreements.
- The president also possesses executive powers that include the duty to see that all laws are faithfully executed and the power to appoint principal executive officers and federal judges (though this requires Senate approval); as chief executive, the president enjoys a power known as “executive privilege,” which makes confidential the communications between the president and his or her advisers and adds to executive power.
- Charged by the Constitution with “giv[ing] to the Congress Information of the State of the Union” and the power to veto legislation, presidents also have powers in the legislative process; these legislative powers have been transformed and expanded to include legislative initiative, the ability to bring a legislative agenda before Congress, and the issuance of executive orders that instruct the executive branch and often have the effect of legislation. For example, soon after taking office, President Barack Obama seized the initiative in presenting Congress with a budget proposal designed to address America’s financial crisis and recessed economy.
Presidents’ delegated powers are those not found in the Constitution but rather are the products of congressional statutes and resolutions.
- Congress has, for the most part, volunteered to delegate legislative authority to the executive since it cannot administer all of the laws and programs it creates.
- The scope and degree of specificity of congressional delegations varies by legislation and over time.

General of the Armies of the United States, or more commonly referred to as General of the Armies, is the highest possible grade in the United States Army.

The General of the Armies of the United States, or more commonly referred to as General of the Armies (abbreviated as GAS or Gas), is the highest possible rank in the United States Army.^[1] The rank is informally equated to that of a six-star general or Generalissimo and is currently one of the two highest possible operational ranks in the United States Armed Forces.

United States[edit]

In the United States, the No Religious Test Clause requires that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Regardless of that, there are federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God," such as for justices and judges in 28 U.S.C. § 453.^[11]

The phrase "So help me God" is prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789, for U.S. officers other than the President. The act makes the semantic distinction between an affirmation and an oath.^[12] The oath, religious in essence, includes the phrase "so help me God" and "[I] swear". The affirmation uses "[I] affirm". Both serve the same purpose and are described as one (i.e. "[...] solemnly swear, or affirm, that [...]") ^[13]

Presidential oath[edit]

Main article: Oath of office of the President of the United States

There is no law that requires Presidents to use a Bible or to add the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath. Historian John R. Alden maintains that Washington himself added the phrase to the end after administration of his first oath.^[14] However, all Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have used this phrase, according to Marvin Pinkert, executive director of the National Archives Experience.^[15]

Oath of citizenship[edit]

The United States Oath of Citizenship (officially referred to as the "Oath of Allegiance," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)), taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens, includes the phrase "so help me God"; however 8 C.F.R. 337.1 provides that the phrase is optional.

Military[edit]

The Enlistment oath and officer's Oath of Office both contain this phrase. Normally, it is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government.^[^{citation
needed}^] However, a change in October 2013 to Air Force Instruction 36-2606^[16] made it mandatory to include the phrase during Air Force enlistments/reenlistments. This change has made the instruction "consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502".^[17] The Air Force announced on September 17, 2014, that it revoked this previous policy change, allowing anyone to omit "so help me God" from the oath.^[18]

State laws[edit]

Main article: No religious test clause § State law

Some of the states have specified that the words "so help me God" were used in oath of office, and also required of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. Where this is still the case, there is the possibility of a court challenge over eligibility, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), that such state-law requirements violate citizens' rights under the federal Constitution. Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia still require "so help me God" as part of the oath to public office. Maryland and South Carolina did include it, but both have been successfully challenged in court. Other states, including New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Rhode Island, allow exceptions or optional phrases. In Wisconsin, the specific language of the oath has been repealed.

Article 6 Annulled – Unconstitutional:

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.^[1]

Supremacy[edit]

Main article: Supremacy Clause

Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.

The Supreme Court under John Marshall was influential in construing the supremacy clause. It first ruled that it had the power to review the decisions of state courts allegedly in conflict with the supreme law, claims of "state sovereignty" notwithstanding. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), the Supreme Court confronted the Chief Justice of Virginia, Spencer Roane, who had previously declared a Supreme Court decision unconstitutional and refused to permit the state courts to abide by it. The Court upheld the Judiciary Act, which permitted it to hear appeals from state courts, on the grounds that Congress had passed it under the supremacy clause.

The Supreme Court has also struck down attempts by states to control or direct the affairs of federal institutions. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) was a significant case in this regard. The state of Maryland had levied a tax on banks not chartered by the state; the tax applied, state judges ruled, to the Bank of the United States chartered by Congress in 1816. Marshall wrote that "the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government." United States property is wholly immune to state taxation, as are government activities and institutions. Congress may explicitly provide immunity from taxation in certain cases, for instance by immunizing a federal contractor. Federal employees, however, may not be immunized from taxes, as the tax would not in any way impede government activities.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was another influential case involving the supremacy clause. The state of New York had granted Aaron Ogden a monopoly over the steamboat business in the Hudson River. The other party, Thomas Gibbons, had obtained a federal permit under the Coastal Licensing Act to perform the same task. The Supreme Court upheld the federal permit. John Marshall wrote, "The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."

The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave-holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers.

The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850^[1], as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave-holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers.

The Act was one of the most controversial elements of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a "slave power conspiracy". It required that all escaped slaves, upon capture, be returned to their masters and that officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate. Abolitionists nicknamed it the "Bloodhound Law" for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.^[2]

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.[1] Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215). In practice, the amendments had little impact on judgments by the courts for the first 150 years after ratification.[citation needed]

On June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison introduced nine amendments to the Constitution in the House of Representatives.[2] Madison proposed inserting specific rights limiting the power of Congress in Article One, Section 9. Seven of these limitations would become part of the ten ratified Bill of Rights amendments. Ultimately, on September 25, 1789, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution, each consisting of one one-sentence paragraph, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's original proposal that the articles be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution, they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it. Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment.[1][3] Article One is still pending before the states.

Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[4]

There are several original engrossed copies of the Bill of Rights still in existence. One of these is on permanent public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.^[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.^[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery began to exist before written history, in many cultures.^[3] A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

Historically, slavery has been legalized institutionally in most societies at some point, but is now outlawed in all recognized countries.^[4][5] The last country to officially abolish slavery was Mauritania in 2007. Nevertheless, there are an estimated 40.3 million people worldwide subject to some form of modern slavery.^[6] The most common form of modern slave trade is commonly referred to as human trafficking. In other areas, slavery (or unfree labour) continues through practices such as debt bondage, the most widespread form of slavery today,^[2] serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.^[7]

Bills of sale in the US[edit]

Historical origin[edit]

The term “bill of sale” originally referred to any writing by which an absolute disposition of personalty for value was effected or evidenced. A common feature of such dispositions is that the owner mortgagor remains in possession and exercises all the attendant rights of ownership, which may be so overwhelming as to induce a third party to accept the same chattel as a security for a grant, albeit without notice of the first mortgagee. This scenario made the bill of sale a veritable tool of fraud.

The evolution of various bills of sale laws, within the USA, was to curb the use of the bill of sale as a means of defrauding innocent persons. The first of such being the Bills of Sale Act 1854 which was repealed and re-enacted by the Bills of Sale Act 1878 which was almost on all fours with the 1854 act. Further developments led to the enactment of the Bills of Sale Act 1882.

A bill of sale has been defined as a legal document made by the seller to a purchaser, reporting that on a specific date at a specific locality and for a particular sum of money or other value received, the seller sold to the purchaser a specific item of personal property, or parcel of real property of which he had lawful possession . The Black’s Law Dictionary on its part defines a bill of sale as “an instrument for the conveyance of title to personal property, absolutely or by way of security”. According to Omotola the bill of sale is “a form of legal mortgage of chattels”. Bullen and Leake and Jacobs define a bill of sale as “a document transferring a proprietary interest in personal chattels from one individual (the “grantor”) to another (the “grantee”), without possession being delivered to the grantee”.

In essence, a bill of sale is a written instrument showing the voluntary transfer of a right or interest or title to personal property, either by way of security or absolutely, from one person to another without the actual physical possession of the property leaving the owner and being delivered to the other party. It is clear from the definitions above that the bills of sale are essentially of two types: The absolute bill of sale and the conditional bill of sale.^[2]

The absolute bill of sale[edit]

Absolute bills of sale, which do not represent any form of security whatsoever, are simply documents evidencing assignments, transfers and other assurances of personal chattels, which are substantially no more than mere contracts of sale of goods covered by the common law of contract and the sale of goods law.

The conditional bill of sale[edit]

The conditional bill of sale refers to any assignment or transfer of personal chattels to a person by way of security for the payment of money. The conditional bill of sale creates a security in favour of the grantee of the bill whereby the grantee is given personal right of seizure giving right to a security interest of a possessory nature.

There are other forms of security over goods such as a pledge and contractual lien which also only give right to a security interest of a possessory nature.

An example of a conditional bill of sale can be found where a creditor gives a loan and has transferred to himself, as collateral or security for the loan, the title of the goods or other personal property of the debtor. The physical goods or other property however remains with the debtor.

Bills of sale in England and Wales[edit]

Historical perspective[edit]

Bills of sale have existed at common law since at least the Middle Ages, when they were most commonly used commercially in the shipping industry. As the general population began to own more personal goods in the Victorian era, bills of sale came to be used as a form of consumer credit. Lenders would extend credit on the security of:

all and every the household goods, furniture, plate, linen, china, books, stock in trade, brewing utensils and all the effects.^[3]

Most often, people would grant bills of sale over their goods as security for a loan. Borrowers would transfer ownership of their goods to the lender, while retaining possession of them when making repayments. When the loan was repaid, the borrower would regain ownership. Bills of sale used in this way are known as “security bills”.

Sometimes, bills of sale would transfer ownership outright, such as when a person sold their goods to another while retaining possession. Bills of sale used for purposes other than borrowing money are known as “absolute bills”.

Bills of Sale Acts[edit]

The increased use of bills of sale in the Victorian era created a “false wealth” problem. Potential purchasers and other lenders could be misled into thinking that the person in possession of goods still owned them. The person in possession could sell the goods or use them to secure another loan. In both cases, the transaction was fraudulent, but the purchaser or lender had no way of discovering that the goods were already subject to a bill of sale.

As a result, Parliament passed the Bills of Sale Act 1878. This largely replicated the provisions of an earlier Bills of Sale Act 1854. It requires all bills of sale to be registered at the High Court so that interested third parties could check whether the person in possession has already transferred away ownership of goods.^[1]

The Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882 had a different purpose. The 1878 Act led to a rise in the use of security bills. Concerns were expressed that such transactions could lead “thousands of honest and respectable people to their ruin”.^[4] Parliament noted that:

Many money-lenders advertised under the names of fictitious banks; and sometimes they advertised in this form – “A widow, with capital to spare, will be happy to lend on easy terms. Strict secrecy. Five per cent.”… Having entrapped a man into his office, the money-lender proceeded in this way – He produced a bill of sale containing a large number of clauses, which it was impossible for the borrower to read or understand in the time allowed...^[4]

In response, Parliament enacted the 1882 Act, which was an early attempt at consumer protection.

Both the 1878 Act and the 1882 Act remain in force today. Absolute bills are regulated only by the 1878 Act. Security bills are regulated by the 1882 Act and the 1878 Act, to the extent that its provisions are consistent with those of the 1882 Act.

Bills of sale in the 21st century[edit]

In the twenty-first century, bills of sale are overwhelmingly used in the form of so-called “logbook loans”.^[5]^:12 These are security bills secured on the borrower’s vehicle. Borrowers transfer ownership of their car, van or motorcycle to the logbook lender as security for the loan. While making repayments, borrowers keep possession of their vehicle and continue to use it. Borrowers hand the logbook lender the V5C registration document – or “logbook” – but this is purely symbolic and has no legal effect.

Criticism and reform of the law[edit]

The law of bills of sale has been criticised on a number of occasions. The Crowther report in 1971^[6] and the Diamond report in 1986^[7] both considered the Acts, with the latter recommending repeal.

In its consultation paper, the Law Commission made a number of criticisms of the law as it stood in 2015. It proposed to replace the Bills of Sale Acts with a new Goods Mortgages Act.^[5]^:71

In its consultation paper, the Law Commission identified five key problems with the Bills of Sale Acts:

undue complexity;
highly technical documentation;
the registration regime is in need of modernisation;
they offer little protection to borrowers;
they offer no protection to third party purchasers.^[5]^:7

The Law Commission proposed to replace the Bills of Sale Acts with a new Goods Mortgage Act that would address each of the criticisms identified in the consultation paper.^[1]

Jump to search

Stowage of a British slave ship (1788)

Reproduction of a handbill advertising a slave auction in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1769.

The Atlantic slave trade or transatlantic slave trade involved the transportation by slave traders of enslaved African people, mainly to the Americas. The slave trade regularly used the triangular trade route and its Middle Passage, and existed from the 16th to the 19th centuries. The vast majority of those who were enslaved and transported in the transatlantic slave trade were Africans from central and western Africa, who had been sold by other West Africans to Western European slave traders (with a small number being captured directly by the slave traders in coastal raids), who brought them to the Americas.^[1] The South Atlantic and Caribbean economies especially were dependent on the supply of secure labour for the production of commodity crops, making goods and clothing to sell in Europe. This was crucial to those western European countries which, in the late 17th and 18th centuries, were vying with each other to create overseas empires.^[2]

The Portuguese were the first to engage in the Atlantic slave trade in the 16th century. In 1526, they completed the first transatlantic slave voyage to Brazil, and other European countries soon followed.^[3] Shipowners regarded the slaves as cargo to be transported to the Americas as quickly and cheaply as possible,^[2] there to be sold to work on coffee, tobacco, cocoa, sugar and cotton plantations, gold and silver mines, rice fields, construction industry, cutting timber for ships, in skilled labour, and as domestic servants. The first Africans imported to the English colonies were classified as "indentured servants", like workers coming from England, and also as "apprentices for life". By the middle of the 17th century, slavery had hardened as a racial caste, with the slaves and their offspring being legally the property of their owners, and children born to slave mothers were also slaves. As property, the people were considered merchandise or units of labour, and were sold at markets with other goods and services.

The major Atlantic slave trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were: the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch Empires. Several had established outposts on the African coast where they purchased slaves from local African leaders.^[4] These slaves were managed by a factor who was established on or near the coast to expedite the shipping of slaves to the New World. Slaves were kept in a factory while awaiting shipment. Current estimates are that about 12 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic,^[5] although the number purchased by the traders was considerably higher, as the passage had a high death rate.^[6][7] Near the beginning of the 19th century, various governments acted to ban the trade, although illegal smuggling still occurred. In the early 21st century, several governments issued apologies for the transatlantic slave trade.

Executive Authority. The executive is the organ exercising authority in and holding responsibility for the governance of a state. The executive executes and enforces law.

The Presidential Powers are Unconstitutional

1. The Constitutional Basis of the Presidency

What was the character of the presidency that the Constitution established? How did the process of presidential selection help to define this character? How have changes in presidential selection affected presidential leadership?

Article II of the Constitution vested the executive power in an independent, unitary president of the United States. Although some delegates to the Constitutional Convention favored a multi-person “executive council,” most framers thought a unitary (single-person) executive was preferable because it could take quick and aggressive action.
Much of Article II is devoted to setting forth how the president will be selected. As opposed to Congress or the people selecting the president, the Constitution established the “electoral college” as an indirect means of electing the president, thus making the executive responsible to the state and national legislators rather than to the electorate.
Presidential independence of Congress was strengthened in the nineteenth century as party conventions displaced the less democratic caucus system (known as “King Caucus”) and nominations of presidential candidates became more democratized; the continued democratization of presidential selection with the eventual adoption of the system of primary elections in the twentieth century further enhanced presidential independence.

2. The Constitutional Powers of the Presidency

With what types of constitutional powers is the president endowed? How have these powers changed over time?

Scholars cite three main types of presidential powers: expressed powers, delegated powers, and inherent powers.
- Expressed powers are those powers specifically granted to the president in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, of the Constitution.
- Given that Article II declares that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” when Congress enacts laws, it delegates power to the president and the executive branch to implement its will; such delegated powers constitute an important, expandable source of presidential strength.
- Inherent powers are those that presidents claim that are not expressed in the Constitution but are inferred from it; they are most often asserted during times of war or national emergency.
The president’s expressed powers, as defined by Article II, Sections 2 and 3, include military, judicial, diplomatic, executive, and legislative powers.
- As “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,” the president possesses military powers and heads the nation’s security and intelligence agencies; these powers also include deploying troops to enforce federal decisions and declarations of “states of emergency.” In response to presidential unilateralism, in 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution.
- The president exercises judicial power when he or she grants pardons, reprieves, and amnesty.
- As “head of state,” the president has the diplomatic powers to make treaties (though their ratification requires Senate approval), receive ambassadors, and create executive agreements.
- The president also possesses executive powers that include the duty to see that all laws are faithfully executed and the power to appoint principal executive officers and federal judges (though this requires Senate approval); as chief executive, the president enjoys a power known as “executive privilege,” which makes confidential the communications between the president and his or her advisers and adds to executive power.
- Charged by the Constitution with “giv[ing] to the Congress Information of the State of the Union” and the power to veto legislation, presidents also have powers in the legislative process; these legislative powers have been transformed and expanded to include legislative initiative, the ability to bring a legislative agenda before Congress, and the issuance of executive orders that instruct the executive branch and often have the effect of legislation. For example, soon after taking office, President Barack Obama seized the initiative in presenting Congress with a budget proposal designed to address America’s financial crisis and recessed economy.
Presidents’ delegated powers are those not found in the Constitution but rather are the products of congressional statutes and resolutions.
- Congress has, for the most part, volunteered to delegate legislative authority to the executive since it cannot administer all of the laws and programs it creates.
- The scope and degree of specificity of congressional delegations varies by legislation and over time.

War Powers Act

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)^[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.^[2]

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

declare War;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels);
raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time);
provide and maintain a Navy;
make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
provide for calling forth the Militia;
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

Appoint the Officers of the militia; and
train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

"The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States^[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress.

Background and passage[edit]

During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was prompted by news leaking out that President Nixon conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam War without notifying Congress.

The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House of Representatives and Senate but was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress overrode the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on November 7, 1973.

Implementation, 1993–2002[edit]

Presidents have submitted 130^[5] reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayagüez incident) cited Section 4(a)(1) and specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger.

Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the Multinational Force in Lebanon Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 (Pub.L. 102–1) which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991 Gulf War, stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

On November 9, 1994, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. "[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."^[6] Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.^[7] It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.^[8]

After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Pub.L. 107–243 which authorized President George W. Bush to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.^[9] This was in addition to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists enacted in 2001.

Libya intervention in 2011[edit]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress in March 2011 that the administration did not need congressional authorization for its military intervention in Libya or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.^[10][11] During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution's provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.^[12] Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the sorties, and the New York Times reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.^[13][14] The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no "hostility" in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.^[15][16][17]

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.^[18] President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,^[19] since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,^[20] and since US involvement was somewhat "limited". In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.^[21] By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.^[22] The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.^[16][23]

On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.^[24][25] In The New York Times, an opinion piece by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman stated that Obama's position "lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years."^[26]

Syria, 2012–2017[edit]

In or about 2013, at the direction of U.S. President Barack Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was put in charge of a covert program to arm and train the rebels who were fighting against Syrian President Assad,^[27] while the State Department supplied the moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid. The Assad regime used chemical weapons on several occasions during the civil war, including a well publicized attack in Ghouta on 21 August 2013. Following the attacks, Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military force in Syria, which Congress rejected. Instead, Congress passed a bill that specified that the Defense Secretary was authorized "...to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals..." The bill specifically prohibited the introduction of U.S. troops or other U.S. forces into hostilities. The bill said:

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.”^[28]

In spite of the prohibition, President Obama, and later President Trump, introduced ground forces into Syria and the United States became fully engaged in the country. On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted that the strike potentially violated the War Powers Resolution.^[29]

Questions regarding constitutionality[edit]

The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed.^[30] In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority.^[31] Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Because the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 limits the President's authority in the use of force without a declaration of war by Congress, there is controversy as to whether the provisions of the resolution are consistent with the Constitution. Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional.

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt ^[32] argues "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception". Bobbitt contends that the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800). In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the President commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized.^[^{clarification
needed}^] Bobbitt also argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.

A second argument concerns a possible breach of the 'separation of powers' doctrine, and whether the resolution changes the balance between the Legislative and Executive functions. This type of constitutional controversy is similar to one that occurred under President Andrew Johnson with the Tenure of Office Act (1867). In that prior instance, the Congress passed a law (over the veto of the then-President) that required the President to secure Congressional approval for the removal of Cabinet members and other executive branch officers. The Act was not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1926.^[33] When Andrew Johnson violated the Act, the House of Representatives impeached him; action in the Senate to remove him failed by one vote.

Here, the separation of powers issue is whether the War Powers Resolution requirements for Congressional approval and presidential reporting to Congress change the constitutional balance established in Articles I and II, namely that Congress is explicitly granted the sole authority to "declare war", "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (Article 1, Section 8), and to control the funding of those same forces, while the Executive has inherent authority as Commander in Chief. This argument does not address the other reporting requirements imposed on other executive officials and agencies by other statutes, nor does it address the provisions of Article I, Section 8 that explicitly gives Congress the authority to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".

The constitution specifically states that Congress is authorized "to provide and maintain a Navy" (Article 1 Section 8). The idea of "maintenance" of a Navy implies that Naval Forces would be a permanent fixture of national defense. Two types of Land Forces are described by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8): the Militia (armed citizenry organized into local defense forces and state volunteer regiments) which Congress can "call forth" and prescribe the "organizing, arming, and disciplining [training]" of, as Congress did in the Militia acts of 1792; and the Army, which Congress can "raise and support", through regular appropriation acts limited to no more than two years. This division matches how the Revolutionary War was fought, by the Continental Army, raised and supported by the Continental Congress, and local Militias and Volunteer Regiments, raised by the separate Colonies. After the war, under the Articles of Confederation, a small standing Army, the First American Regiment was raised and gradually increased in size over time by Congress before, following the Constitution's ratification, being transformed into the Regular Army. The availability of a standing Army, and the President of the United States being authorized as "Commander in Chief", implies his ability as a military commander to employ forces necessary to fulfill his oath to defend the constitution.

There is also an unresolved legal question, discussed by Justice White in INS v. Chadha of whether a "key provision of the War Powers Resolution", namely 50 U.S.C. 1544(c), constitutes an improper legislative veto. (See Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 971.) That section 1544(c) states "such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution". Justice White argues in his dissent in Chadha that, under the Chadha ruling, 1544(c) would be a violation of the Presentment Clause. The majority in Chadha does not resolve the issue. Justice White does not address or evaluate in his dissent whether that section would fall within the inherent Congressional authority under Article I Section 8 to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".^[^{citation
needed}^]

Jump up ^ "50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION".
Jump up ^ "War Powers - Law Library of Congress - Library of Congress".
Jump up ^ The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966)(1911)
Jump up ^ [1] Archived December 15, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance. Washington: The Service, 2011 (RL33532), Summary.
Jump up ^ Savage, Charlie (2011-04-01) Clock Ticking on War Powers Resolution, The New York Times The Caucus Blog
Jump up ^ Campbell v. Clinton, 203, February 18, 2000, p. 19, retrieved 2017-02-23
Jump up ^ How War Powers, Congressional Action have Intersected Over Time The Wall Street Journal (2013-09-02)
Jump up ^ 107th Congress (October 10, 2002). "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (text). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2008-12-08.
Jump up ^ "Congress members grill administration officials on Libya mission". CNN. March 31, 2011.
Jump up ^ Lillis, Mike; et al. (March 30, 2011). "White House briefing changes few minds on Libya involvement". The Hill.
Jump up ^ Crabtree, Susan (March 30, 2011). "Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions". Talking Points Memo.
Jump up ^ Charlie Savage (May 26, 2011). "Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act". The New York Times. p. A8.
Jump up ^ Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). "2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate". The New York Times. p. A1.
Jump up ^ Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). "President overruled 2 key lawyers on debate over Libya war policy". The Seattle Times.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Cosgrove, Maureen. "State Department legal adviser: Obama acting lawfully in Libya", JURIST (June 28, 2011).
Jump up ^ "War Powers Act of 1973", The New York Times (June 29, 2011).
Jump up ^ Libya War Deadline Arrives Fox News
Jump up ^ "White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization", ABC News, May 20, 2011^[^{dead
link}^]
Jump up ^ "Libya: Nato assumes control of military operation". BBC News. March 27, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on October 5, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
Jump up ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on October 16, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
Jump up ^ Owen, Robert (2015). "The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support". In Karl Mueller. Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War. Rand Corporation. p. 105.
Jump up ^ Dinan, Stephen, "Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission". The Washington Times, Saturday, June 4, 2011
Jump up ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (June 3, 2011). "House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ Ackerman, Bruce. "Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War", The New York Times (June 21, 2011). Page A27.
Jump up ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Entous, Adam (February 17, 2015). "U.S. to Give Some Syria Rebels Ability to Call Airstrikes". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 17, 2015.
Jump up ^ September 19 2014. Congressional Record. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/124/text?overview=closed
Jump up ^ "Was Trump's Syria Strike Legal? An Expert Weighs In". Retrieved 7 April 2017.
Jump up ^ "The war powers resolution". US Department of State Bulletin. 1988-09-15. Retrieved 2008-07-09. "The War Powers Resolution has been controversial from the day it was adopted over President Nixon's veto. Since 1973, executive officials and many Members of Congress have criticized various aspects of the law repeatedly."
Jump up ^ War Powers Joint Resolution, §2(b).
Jump up ^ "War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely's War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath," Michigan Law Quarterly 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364–1400.
Jump up ^ "Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926)".

References[edit]

Grimmett, Richard Z. (February 14, 2006). "CRS Report for Congress: War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2007-09-30.
United States Congress (November 7, 1973). "War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148)". The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. Retrieved 2007-09-30.
United States Congress (October 31, 1998). "H.R.4655: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)". IraqWatch.org. Archived from the original on June 30, 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
United States Congress (September 18, 2001). "Public Law 107-40: Joint Resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States (S.J. Res. 23)" (text). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2007-09-30.
United States Congress (October 16, 2002). "Public Law 107-243: Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (H. J. Res. 114)" (text). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2007-09-30.
Kinkopf, Neil. "The Congress as Surge Protector" (PDF). American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. p. 2. Retrieved 2007-09-30. The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous. When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President 'no', the President must comply.
Doumar, Robert G. (January 8, 2003). "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk (CA-02-439-2)" (PDF). United States Judiciary. Retrieved 2007-09-30.
Young, D. Lindley (February 24, 2003). "Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Appeal" (PDF). United States Judiciary. Retrieved 2011-12-06.
Library of Congress (March 12, 2012). "Research Help: War Powers" (text). United States Government Library of Congress. Retrieved 2012-05-04.

External links[edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

War Powers Resolution

DBA Jesus Christ - G.O.T.A & C.J.S.

Jesus Christ

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Constitutional Decree – Enforceable – the 41sr Amendment