Patriot Beware

Patriot Beware! ttAmericans are misled and demerica's political landscape is riddled with ideological ceived into believing that the 'inpitfalls and snares that come' tax applies to the general public.... The IRS admits that the threaten the unwary. Those who de6income' tax system is dependent pend upon the major media for perspective and understandingabout the upon voluntary filing of tax restateof the nation me treated to a daily turns." (The Fact Finder,May 16, barrage of misinformation and propa1993) gandaparadedasunassailablewisdom. The U.S. Internal Revenue SerFor example, the major media convice doesboast that it relies upon the stantly peddle the notions that weHare voluntary compliance of most of the public who file returns without being helps the poor but doesn't create dependency, that the hesident has powdirectly hounded by government ers as "Commander in Chief" to assign agents; it is the only way the IRS U.S. troops to UN command at will, could stay within its budget. But that and that "assault weapons" in the doesn't mean there is no mandatory hands of law-abiding citizens constirequirement; the IRS does indeed prosecutecitizens who don't file. Intute a danger to the public safety. While Americans whose views the come taxes,despiteour most desperEstablishment confines to the "far ate wishes, are not voluntary; their payment is required of all individuright" of the political spectrum are less susceptibleto the manipulations als (unless their income is less than of the major media, some do fall prey the exemption amount) residing in to different myths, often in the form the United Statesunder Section6012 of Title 26 0f the u.S. code. which of miracle cures for our political ills. ! One such panacea is term limits, states: "Returns with respect to ino E come taxes under subtitle A [governwhich has been embraced by some ! U conservatives as a remedy for coning tax computationsl shall be made c o by the following: (lXA) Every indigressional socialism. Others believe patriot's Truth is the most effective weapon. that we should abandonthe lesislative vidual having for the taxable year process altogether and concentrate on nul- torate. Most of the false alternativesserve gross income which equals or exceedsthe lifying the enforcement of unconstitutional as distractionsto genuine progress.Yet exemption amount...." The penalty for laws through the activism of "fully-inwhile the above examples constitute a violation of Section 6O12 can be found formed"juries. A few have even concluded faulty thought process (term limits will under Section 7203, which calls for up to a $25,000 fine and one year in prison for that our situation has grown so grave that make voters wise, there are sufficient patriots must now assume a survivalist numbers of activists to stack juries with an individual "who willfully fails to pay profile by stockpiling food and ammuni- regularity or to defeat the U.S. govern- such estimated tax or tax, make such rement on the battlefield, etc.), there are a turn, keep such records, or supply such tion and organizing into armed militias. None of the above provides a realistic number of distractions based upon out- information." THB New ANTIRIcANhas long opposed solution to America's political and cul- right falsehoods and,/or deliberate deceptural difficulties. Such a solution can only tions.Followingaresomeofthosetangents the federal income tax, but it should be be achievedthrough the creation of a con- patriots occasionally face on the path to re- eliminated through the legislative process stitutionally literate and principled elec- storing limited constitutional government. and not civil disobedience.

THE NEW AMERICAN / FEBRUARY 17, 1997

25

would have to be apportioned because some of the proceeds of the tax would come from property, and moved the entire tax into the category of indirect taxes for constitutional purposes. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company(1916): "It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendmentl that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense- an authority already possessedand never questioned... but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Individuals who cite such Supreme Court casesto claim that the income tax is unconstitutional despite the 16th Amendment do so under either obstinate and invincible ignorance or intentional deceit. "Wages or compensation for labor is not taxable [under an income tax]." (Media Bypass, April 1996) Wages have always been considered taxable income. The first federal income A federal income tax on wages has consistently been upheld by Supreme Court. tax, levied in 1862, called for the tax 65If the income tax was not imposed tially a tax upon the property itself and a "upon the annual gains, profits or income upon the incomes of citizens of the direct tax in need of apportionment. The of every person residing in the United United States before the Sixteenth Supreme Court threw out the entire in- States,whether derived from any kind of Amendment lbecause the Supreme come tax law on the basis that Congress property, rents, interest, dividends, salaCourt ruled it unconstitutionallo and, as could not possibly have foreseen the en- ries, or from any profession, trade, emthe Supreme Court says, the Sixteenth tire burden of the income tax being borne ployment, or vocation carried on in the Amendment did not change the united by wages(the element of the tax the Court United States or elsewhere, or from any States Constitution, evidently their in- deemedto be constitutional). other source whatever." That tax was corne is still not subject to the income In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled in unanimously upheld by the Supreme tax." (John B. Kotmair, Save-a-Patriot Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. that the 16th Court in Springer v. United States(1880). Fellowship,Aprit 25, 1995) Amendment "conferred no new oower of As already noted, when the Supreme This statementdeceptively refers to the taxation...." It is interesting that income Court overturned the income tax law of 1895SupremeCourtcase,Pollockv. Farm- tax protesters often cite the Baltic case, 1894 becausethe tax was unapportioned, ersLoan and Trust Company,in which an which upheld the imposition of the federal the Court ruled that only unapportioned 1894 income tax law was ruled unconsti- income tax upon individuals. That same taxes levied against income derived from tutional becauseit levied an unapportioned decision went on to say that although it rents and dividends were unconstitutional, tax on income derived from rents and conferred no new power of taxation, the while taxes on income derived from labor property, and to a post-16th Amendment 16th Amendment "simply prohibited the were indirect taxes and therefore constiSupremeCourt decision.The U.S. Consti- previous and plenary power of income tutional. The entire statutewas voided betution requiresthat "No capitation,or other taxation possessedby Congressfrom the cause, the High Court ruled in Pollock v. direct, tax shall be laid unlessin proportion beginning from being taken out ofthe cat- FarmersInan andTrust Co., striking only to the censusor enumerationherein before egory of indirect taxation to which it in- income taxes derived from property directed to be taken," and that all indirect herently belonged." "would leave the burden of the tax to be taxes "shall be uniform throughout the In other words, according to this ruling borne by professions, trades, employUnited States." In the pre-16th Amend- the l6thAmendmentchanged howthein- ments, or vocations; and in that way what ment Pollock case,the High Court ruled come tax would be laid rather than was intended as a tax on capital would rethat income taxeson labor and wageswere whether it could be laid (which the entire main in substance a tax on occupations indirect atd not in need of apportionment SupremeCourt has always agreedwas al- and labor. We cannot believe that such accordingto congressionalrepresentation, ready within the power of Congress).The was the intention of Congress." but that when the tax was derived from 16th Amendment, the SupremeCourt has The current U.S. Code (Title 26, Secproperty-related income, like stock diviconsistently ruled, simply lifted the con- tion 61) defines the gross income subject dends and land rents, the tax was essen- stitutional requirement that income taxes to U.S. income taxation as "all income 26

THENEWAMERICAN 17, 1997 / FEBRUARY

from whatever source derived, including ... (1) Compensationfor services."And wages fall within the bounds of compensation for services. "[The public record] irrefutably shows that not one, but several, egregious frauds were committed in the purported ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. That amendment was. thus. not ratified at all and any appearance of ratffication which may exist has no foundation because of the frauds committed by parties involved in the ratification process." (The Law That Never Was, VoL II, by Bilt Benson, 1986) The 16th Amendment was a direct responseto the 1895 SupremeCourt decisionin Pollockv. FarmersLoan andTrust

THE NEW AMERICAN/ FEBRUARY17, 1997

Co. The reaction to that decision was one of outrage among Populist Party agitators and their sympathizers within the Democratic Pafty, who browbeat the public into acceptingthe amendment.There was little organizedopposition to the income tax by the time the Congress had submitted the income tax (16th) amendmentto the states for ratification in 1909. The amendment passedthe Senatewithout a single "nay" vote, and only i4 opposedthe income tax in the House. The votes were similarly lopsided in most statelegislatures. Bill Benson's contentionthat the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and is therefore invalid rests on the fact that most of the stateswhich ratified the 16th Amendment did so by ratifying resolutions which varied slishtlv from the

amendmentsubmittedby Congress.However, all of the variations in the statepassedresolutions are clearly attributable to grammatical oversights and improper transcription rather than fraud or any substantive change in the amendment.In his two-volume work, The Law that Never Was, Benson never successfully demonstrates that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified; in fact, his research all but provesthe opposite.Bensondoesn't even attempt to contend that the states were under the impression that they were ratifying some amendmentother than the income tax; there was only one income tax amendmentsubmitted to the statesby Congress,and the issue was well known in statelegislative circles. The only interesting case made by

Benson is that Kentucky never appeared to complete the ratification process. The legislaturein that statepasseda resolution with grammatical mistakes (compared to the congressionalamendment),and it was vetoed by the state's anti-income tax governor. Realizing the errors, the Kentucky House again took up the amendment and passedanotherbill. There is some controversy as to whether the Senatepassedor rejected the amendment the second time (according to Benson, the Senatejournal extracts recorded the amendmentas having been passedwhile the officialjournal recorded the measure as having been rejected). In any event, the Kentucky legislature appearedto be satisfied that it had ratified the amendment.But even income tax advocates of the day fretted about the appropriatenessof including Kentucky among those having ratified the amendment. Income tax advocate Kossuth Kent Kennan wrote of Kentucky in his 1910 booklncome Taxation that "there is some question to the regularity of the proceedings" and worried about the consequences if "the vote of Kentucky should become necessaryto make up the total of thirtysix states favoring the amendment." It was. indeed. one of the 36. As to the governor's veto, it was immaterial. When Congressdeclared the amendment ratified in 1913.it did so on the basis of the constitutional requirement that amendmentsbe ratified only by the legislatures,of the states or by state ratifying conventions (the mode of ratification determined by Congress).Moreover, to this day Kentucky has not contestedits inclusion among those stateshaving ratified the income tax amendment. Interestingly, most of those who cite the Benson book do so in order to excuse themselvesfrom paying income taxes on their wages,which the SupremeCourt has always ruled an indirect tax not in need of apportionment. In other words, the Supreme Court would still uphold unapportioned income taxes on the wage income of individuals even if the 16th Amendment were repealed. The only realistic means of freeing this nation from Karl Marx's income tax is for Americans to force Congress to repeal the statutes allowing for the income tax, along with those unconstitutional welfare-state laws which necessitatean oneroustax burden. "Citizens born in the Sovereign 50 states were not born in a territorv over THENEWAMERICAN/ FEBRUARY17, 1997

which the United States is Sovereign! Therefore the Citizens of the 50 states are not the subjects ofthe graduated direct income tax." (Vultares in Eagle's Clothing, by Lynne Meredith, 1994) This statement is based upon the misconception that the general taxation power of the Congress is limited by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution; it is not. That clause grants Congress the power to "exerciseexclusive legislation in all caseswhatsoever,over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessationof particular states,and the acceptanceof Congress,become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchasedby consentof the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines,arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings." Of course, the exclusive jurisdiction within federal territories $anted by Clause 17 is in addition to other enumeratedfederal powers within the states,not a limitation upon them. The federal government may levy any kind of tax it chooses (except a tax on exports), either direct or indirect, within the 50 states. The only limitation on the taxation power is that indirect taxes must be "uniform" throughout the United Statesand direct taxes must be apportioned according to congressional representation.(The 16th Amendment to the Constitution puts the income tax in the category of taxation requiring uniformity.) To suggest that the Founding Fathers drafted a federal constitution only for the District of Columbia and its territories is ludicrous. The District of Columbia did not even exist at the time and was established to provide a seat for the national government. "Social Security tax is just another income tax that you voluntarily agreed to pay." (Medin Bypass, April 1996) By law, all wage-earnersare required to pay social security tax under Section 3101 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (self-employed individuals pay under Section 1401), and the only exception under the law is for a few religious orders approved by the Treasury Department.Incidentally, a rider on the implementing legislation for the GATT/IVTO treaty passed by Congress during a lame-duck session of the 103rd Congressrequires all Americans to have a Social Security number from birth beginningJanuaryI, 1997.

"All Americans can set themselves Free with the Stroke of a Pen by simply Giving Absolute Voluntary Jurisdiction to the Common Law Court. and Demanding their Relief and Remedies for their Grievances." (Emilio L. Ippolito, founder of the Common Law Court of the People, November 211995) If Emilio Ippolito has gained freedom with the stroke of a pen in creating a "common law court," why is it that he has been spending so much time in prison? Here is some background on the common law and the citizen's groupings marketing themselvesas common law courts. "Common law" is a generic term describing the legal system the American states inherited from England at the time of independence.Common law developed in England over the last 900 years or so, but is generally traced to its beginnings during the reign of Edward I in 1100. Edward's curia rode circuits to institute justice throughout England and generally came to enforce the same laws equitably to all areas of the country in the king's jurisdictions. Although thesecommonly enforced laws initially applied only to feudal nobles, the Magna Carta of l2l5 and subsequent legislation enacted by the English kings gradually increased the jurisdiction and reach of the common law over the various local feudal and ecclesiasticalcourts. Over the centuriescommon law has acquired a number of characteristicswhich protect individual rights, such as the right to a trial by jnry, the right to face an accuser in open court, protection against searchand seizure,etc. The English Petition of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1688) in England addedgreatly to a body of law which set common law rights above the whims of the Crown. In court. common law involves decisionsarrived at by precedent,with casesarising from actual controversies.One ofthe greatestinfluences on the American common law system at the time of independencewas Sir William Blackstone's four-volume Commentaries,which were based upon a series of 1756 lectures at Oxford. The Founding Fathers frequently cited Blackstone's Commentariesin their correspondence, particularly the frst volume which expounded the rights of Englishmen, and used many of his arguments as justification for secession from England. The Founders were also influenced by Sir Edward Coke, a great exponent of common law who affirmed the principle that the

common law can control and supersedean ney General Gale Norton that her enforcement of "illegal" laws had resulted act of parliament. The term "common law" is often em- in a'Judgment" againsther of $3.7 billion ployed to differentiate from the civil law in punitive damages.The Dallas Morning system usedby non-English-speakingcoun- News receiveda $1 billion judgmentagainst tries as well as to distinguish from equity it from the "Common Law Court of Pleas"; law and specializedtypes of law and courts the Montana Freemenoffered a $1 million used in the United States,such as admiralty bounty on the local sheriff through its bogus common law court; and another"comlaw on the federal level and family and juvenile law on the statelevel. The Constitu- mon law" court. decidins in favor of the "Republic of Texas." [anded down a tion grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in all casesarising under the Constitution judgment of more than $93 trillion against "in fcommon] law and equity," as well as the U.S. sovernment and other entities. in cases arising from the military, the states,or federal officials. "Common law courts" have been springing up in recent years through the efforts of some misguided individuals. Someare followers of EugeneSchroder's bizarre theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended.*Others seek declarations of statecitizenship (or Republic of Texascitizenship)in a vain attempt to evade either income taxes or federal jurisdiction in some other controversy. Still others seek to "prosecute" elected officials for alleged "crimes." The creationof "common law courts" by the fiat of certain individuals is usually basedon the false suppositionsthat conrmon law was abolished in the United States at some time during the 20th century and that anyonecan create his own common law court under the Constitution. Yet none of the so-called Sir Wilfiam Blackstone: His Commentaries had major influence on U.S. common law. common law courts which Tne New AwnrceN has examined even pretends to These "common law courts" do not apcite a specific provision of the U.S. or ply law, have no legitimacy as courts, and stateconstitutionsauthorizing private citi- do not rule in any sort of common manzens to create such a court. ner. They are nothing more than lynch Thesecommon law court'Judges" are mobs without a rope. not electedby anyone other than the small circle of zealots who peddle their deviant "[]t is now resolved at law that the Recommon law court theories, and they are public of Texas is re-installed as its own not appointed by elected officials. These free and independent Nation among na"courts" therefore violate the fundamen- tions, and is subject only to its treaties tal principle of American government authorized by its Constitution." (John C. which requires the consent of the gov- VanKirk, "President" of the Republic erned. Although not directly part of the of Texas moYement, January 5,1996) common law, the consentof the governed A few Texans claim to have initiated a has long been associatedwith the com- constitutional convention and set up their mon law and can be traced back to the own "provisional" national government, Magna Carta itself, which required the but there is no legitimacy to either their consent of the nobles for the king to im- "government" or their rulings. It should pose an "aid or scutage[tax]." More often be noted that the unelected Republic of than not, these unelected "common law Texas(RT) leadershave no appreciation courts" pass illegitimate multi-million of the fact that legitimate government redollar 'Judgments" against elected offi- quires the consent of the governed - a cials and legitimate government entities. concept embraced by the Founding FaOne such court notified Colorado Attorthers of both the United Statesand Texas. THENEWAMERICAN 17, 1997 / FEBRUARY

Leaders of the Republic of Texas plan to hold a Texas constitutional convention by January1, 1998.They assertthat Texas was never legally annexed by the United States, the intent and best efforts of Stephen Austin and Sam Houston notwithstanding. The crux of their argument is that Congressdid not have the power to annexTexasinto the union under the Constitution becauseTexas was a foreign nation at the time. In point of fact, not only does Congresshave exclusive power to admit new statesinto the union under Article IV, Section3 of the U.S. Constitution, but there is no limitation against annexation of foreign nations within that section. The self-appointed, would-be rulers of Texas have been issuing ludicrous statementswhich are at odds with conservative and constitutional principles as well as with common sense.John VanKirk's successoras "President"of the Republic of Texas, Archie Lowe, remarked in an October 1I, I 996 press release,"The conditionsin Texas have reached the same point as Nazi Germany in 1939." This "Republic" has appealed to the freedom-threatening United Nations requestingUN. recognition ofTexas as an independentnation. RT has also proclaimed amnesty and full citizenship for all illegal aliens "domiciling on the soil of Texas for at least six months." And it has encouragedits "citizens" to form "common law courts" in every county in Texas. Like the leaders of the RT provisional govemment,the officers of the common law courtsarenot electedby anybody (exceptthe tiny group signing "citizenship" papersfor RT) and are not appointed by any elected official. As already indicated, one such "common law court" evidencedthe bizarre natureof suchbodiesby demandingfor the RT a judgment ot $93,492,827,008,096.00 in gold against the federal government, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal ReserveBanks, and the Roman Catholic Church at the Vatican. Richard Mclaren, RT "Chief Ambassador and General Consul," has served time in the Midland County Detention Center on contempt of court chargesrelating to his unwillingness to cooperatewith * If true, this would mean that the federal government is not now violating the Constitution by exercising extra-constitutional powers, since the government can hardiy violate a law that has zLlreadybeen suspended.In truth, of course,the Constitution has not been suspended;it is waiting to be used.

a legitimate court hearing related to his filing of bogus liens against the Stewart Title Guarantee Company. Stewart Title eventually won a $1.8 million judgment againstMclaren plus a pefinanentinjunction prohibiting Mclaren from initiating future bogus liens against Stewart Title, according to the June 8, 1996 Dallas Morning News. More dangerously, the "Republic" has circulated petitions in which signees"renounce" U.S. and Texas State citizenship and pledge to "support and defend" the Republic of Texas. Although the RT has not yet been involved in any violence, continued frustration resulting from its failure to attain its goals could cause its "Secretary of Defense" to initiate RT action going beyond the issuing of bogus liens through its authorized "common law courts." Militia organizations throughout Texas have been allying themselveswith the RT for the last several months. And Mclaren has threatenedto use "bodily force" if federal marshalsattempt to affest him for failing to appear in court for chargesrelated to the bogus liens filed by the RT. Moreover, federal officials could use the RT forms renouncing U.S. citizenship as evidence of sedition in later court prosecutions- particularly if violence erupts.Conservativeswould do well to ignore these self-appointedwanna-berulers of the RT.

Concentration camps and secret UN bases on U.S. soil: Wild rumors, no proof, site is any more a "detention center" in is overwhelming; the plan exists for waiting than any other large public structhe imprisonment of millions of U.S. ture. Nevertheless,Living Truth Miniscitizens. tries leader Texe Marrs has continued to push the Amtrak scenario in a videotape Pabstinferred an insidious motive from entitled Concentration Campsin America. the fact that the Army Field Manual did Most concenfrationcamp theories can be not explicitly state in that paragraphthat traced back to the late William R. Pabst of Civil Affairs Operations should not be Houston, who argued that concentration conducted in the United States.But no camps were being set up in the United reasonableperson would expect to find Statesas early as 1976. Pabstcame to this such a legalistic disclaimer in the definiconclusionby taking a few genuinely omi- tion section of a guide designedto explain "There are 2,851,433 fellow Americans scheduled for [concentration camp] ter- nous federal rulings and then exfrapolating military conceptsto recruits. The fact that mination on the RED LIST pick-up. ad nauseamabout the intent of the docu- the Army has conductedtraining exercises There are 3.374.69I fellow Americans ments. For example, Pabst noted that the for Civil Affairs Operations should not scheduled for termination on the BLUE Army Field Manual refers to a "Civil Afalarm citizens, unless evidence existed LIST pick-up.... These figures are sub- fairs Operation" in conqueredterritory as pointing to something involving more ject to expanding by as much as ten "Assumption of full or partial executive, than just training exercises. But Pabst percent each by the time of FINAL legislative, and judicial authority over a gave no other reasoning or evidence to DOWNLOADING INTO FEMA COMcountry or area." That soundsreasonable support his statement that this somehow PUTER BASES (34 NATTONWTDE) enough; the Army should administer or- constitutes overwhelming evidence that ON JULY 22, 1996." (Jesus Reigns der temporarily in captured foreign lands millions of Americans are headedto conMinistries fax broadcast, July 30, 1996) to prevent looting and possible terrorism. centration camps. The above statementis one of a series But here is how Pabstintemreted it: The federal bugabooswho would usher of ever-multiplying and varying accounts U.S. citizens into concentration camps in which embracethe idea that a "new world Nowhere in the manual does it exPabst's time were the now defunct Fedorder" machine is poised to suck patriotic clude this program from being put eral Law EnforcementAssistanceAdminAmericans into a waiting domestic gulag into effect right here in the United istration and the U.S. Army; Pabst even system at any moment. Many of these acStates.As a matter of fact, in Kearny, provided a map of the United Statespincounts cite the Beech Grove Amtrak New Jersey, the Civil Affairs group pointing where the concentration camps maintenanceshop near Indianapolis as the went into that areaand practiced takwould likely be. Today, in the eyes of site of one of these concentration camps. ing over that governmental unit.... most concentrationcamp theoriststhe role THn Nsw ArvrsRrcANinvestigated the matNow, the Department of the Army that was to be played by the LEAA and ter and reported in its October 31,1994 isstill maintains that all this is not for the Army has been replaced by FinCEN, sue that there is, indeed, nothing at the the United States- yet this training multi-jurisdictional task forces, and the Amtrak repair shop to indicate that this continues here for us. The evidence United Nations. The names on the map THENEWAMERICAN 17, 1997 / FEBRUARY

gold-fringed flags fall within the exclusive province of the military. Besides, there is no statutory basis for alleging that flags change the legal system applied in any courtroom, military or civilian. The applicable legal jurisdiction is determinedby other factors, such as membershipin the armed services. "Under the terms of Executive Order 11490, the President of the United States can declare that a National Emergency exists Are we on the "fringe" of tyranny? and the Executive Branch can may have chaaged,but the map itself has ... put the entire country under TOnot. The Red List/Blue List scenariois an- TAL MARTIAL LAW AND A MILIother variation on the concentrationcamp TARY DrcrAToRsHIP," (unsourced theme based on an anonymous "former photocopied circular, Kosmos Comgovernment official" who was inter- puter BBS cited as originator) viewed on short-wave radio. This statementdescribesfairly accuThe dangerin uncritically acceptingun- rately what the practical effect of Execusubstantiatedrumors about concentration tive Order 11490 would have been had it camps is that it leads to the false conclu- been implemented. It never was, and it sion that our freedomsare alreadylost and was eventually repealed(as it should have that it is too late for lawful remedies.obbeen) as a result of the National Emergenviously, if the crematoriaare ready for the cies Termination Act of 19j6. constitutionalists,gun owners, and militia The President's power to issue execumembers, what is the use in working to tive orders arises under his authority as educatethe electorateor even working to- chiefexecutive ofthe federal government ward the next election?It is, of course,true (Article II, Section One, Clause One of that if we continue to lose our freedoms, the U.S. Constitution) and Commanderconcentration camps on u.S. soil would in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, eventually becomea reality. Ironically, al- section Two, clause one). But that authorlowing ourselvesto be neutralized by the ity is limited solely to administering the present false rumors would only serve to law as passedby Congress and repelling hastenthat day. surprise invasions, respectively. During the 20th century, however, many Presi"The Maritime, Admiralty Flag is a dents have improperly issued executive gold fringed American Flag of War orders to create entirely new government pursuant to Army Regulation s840-10 agencies,such as the Food Administration October 1990 under which all constitu- during World War I, the Office of Centional rights are suspended." (F. Joe sorship during World War II, and the Hollando North American Freedom Commission on Critical Infrastructure Council, October 17, 1996'l Protection during the Clinton AdministraMr. Holland's declarationof "fact" em- tion. Mr. Clinton has also issuedexecutive braces a number of erroneous notions. ordersto bail outthe economiesofforeign First, it assumesthat the U.S. Constitution nations and to place u.S. soldiers under and the rights it protects can be negated United Nations control. by military law; that is not so. Second, it Clearly there is no authority under the incorrectly assumesthat Army regulations Constitution for the Presidentto createencan negate congressionally and state- tire federal agenciesby sheer edict, and passedlaws and supplant civilian law in there certainly is a constitutional prohibicivilian courlrooms; they cannot. tion upon any rights protected under the It is true that Army regulations do au- Constitution from being infringed during thorize gold-fringed flags for "indoor even a time of national emergency(except display and for use in [military] ceremo- for the suspensionof habeascorpus). But nies and parades" and that a "Military the practical limitations on the power of Courtroom" is among the approved in- presidential executive orders have historidoor uses. But that does not mean that callv been defined bv what the other two

branchesof government are willing to tolerate. Executive orders, whether called Executive Orders or PresidentialDecision Directives, continue to function in the United Statesas defacto legislation. The SupremeCourt has overturnedseveral executive orders as unconstitutional, most notably in the case of Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer. In Youngstown, the High Court overturned Harry Truman's Executive Order 10340, which was an attempt to seizethe entire steel industry. Congress has also overturned numerous executive orders by legislation over the years, but has more often than notlet defacro presidential law-making through executive decree continue unhindered. Worse still, Congresshas exhibited an increasingtendency to write legislation that allows presidential "flexibility" to proclaim executive orders in a variety of matters. * * * While the false statements examined above can be exposed as factually inaccurate or wildly misleading, many false solutions are more a result of poor judgment. Survivalists who think militias will save themselves from the new world order overestimate their own firepower and create a fertile ground for loose cannons or federal agentsprovocateurs within the militia movement. Such elements could be responsible for creating a perceived threat from the "radical right" that could then be used as justification for outright gun confiscation and other police-state measures.Fully Informed Jury advocatessell their movement as a panacea for all unjust laws, when it can never be clear how juries will rule on a particular case. In order to avoid the pitfalls offalse solutions for a runaway federal government, solid judgment is required. Wild statements must be checked out and not be taken at face value, especially when the statementsoriginate from a commentator or organization without a proven track record of reliability. Even if the factual statements prove to be technically true, considerationneeds to be given as to whether the facts support the conclusion. For example, although tax rebels may accurately quote various court decisions, their generally brief citations fail to support their conclusions that the income tax is voluntary and need not be paid. If constitutionalistsinsist upon reliable information and exercise sound judgment, they will rarely be led astray. I

34

THENEWAMERICAN 17, 1997 / FEBRUARY