The Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security are forbidden by the United States Constitution

Obama swore on the Bible "to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States."

“I, Barack Hussein, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God” ~ Obama presidential oath of office using the same Bible that was used to swear in Abraham Lincoln. (mp3).

The US government, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration are deemed lawless governments by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Both Bush and Obama have assumed, without lawful authority, to exercise powers not granted, allowed, permitted or sanctioned by U.S. law. The Patriot Act is a gross violation of the United States supreme law – the U.S. Constitution. It violates every Amendment of the Bill of Rights – amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The Patriot Act clearly violates the U.S. supreme law, the U.S. Constitution. The Patriot Act clearly is in violation of the First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition, Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain, Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsell, Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury, Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment, Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights and Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments from enacting bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament. No bills of attainder have been passed since 1798, that is until 2001. The Bush administration illegally passed a bill of attainder when they drew up and made law the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is the U.S. government usurping the law by declaring unjustly and unlawfully a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.

The provision in the United States Constitution forbid both the federal and state governments from enacting bills of attainder reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue, since the unamended constitution imposes very few restrictions on state governments’ power.

Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”. The constitution of every State also expressly forbids bills of attainder. For example, Wisconsin’s constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Contrast this with the subtly more modern variation of the Texas version: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made”.

The precedent that best reflects most of the original intention of the mandates is from Cummings v. Missouri.[9] It states

A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.

The stated purpose of the Patriot Act is to “deter and punish American terrorists in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” One criticism of the Act is that “other purposes” often includes the detection and prosecution of non-terrorist alleged future crimes.

The formation of the Department of Homeland Security is also a gross violation of the United States law – the U.S. Constitution. The lawless U.S. government violated the law by creating an independent agency vested with civil powers not granted to it in the Constitution. The Bush administration and the Obama administration have both violated the law by unlawfully granting, without legal authority, the U.S. Treasury Department extended powers and jurisdiction not specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution. Both Bush and Obama unlawfully coerced, by terrorism and unlawful proclamation of presidential authority, the U.S. Congress to give $trillions to the U.S. White House to use at their discretion and without any congressional or legal oversight.

Civil governments lawfully exist only at the behest of the people. Civil government cannot create or perpetuate itself without running roughshod over the basis of our political system. Civil government may not reorganize itself for the sake of expediency. Likewise, the federal government may exercise only those civil powers that are specifically granted to it in the Constitution. If a power is not granted, the general government does not possess it and therefore may not act as though it does possess it. Congress may not exercise jurisdiction not extended nor may it vest independent agencies with such jurisdiction.

The separation of federal power into three constitutionally defined branches permits no combination of the power of those branches in an independent agency or commission. In short, it permits no fourth branch of general government, independent or otherwise, to be created by the government.

President Bush and President Obama are both guilty of abuse of power and gross violation of the law with the unlawful creation, by their governments, of independent agencies or commissions. The agencies and commissions created by both Bush and Obama were created illegally. Both created agencies and commissions that unlawfully combine the powers of the separate branches of federal power. Obama claims to have the power to control the purse strings to handle the U.S. economic crisis. He claims to have the authority to dictate how the U.S. federal dollars are spent. He claims to have the power to force the private sector to comply with his demands or be dissolved. Obama has no such powers. The U.S. Congress has control over the purse strings as declared by the supreme law of the United States – the U.S. Constitution. Obama does not have, was never granted, any such financial powers. Obama cannot force a private sector company to declare bankruptcy. Obama cannot dictate how much Congress gives him for the U.S. fiscal budget or for illegal private banks bailouts or for war.

Obama cannot grant the Treasure Secretary extended jurisdiction. Obama most certainly cannot grant anyone or any agency or commission of his government any extraordinary powers that clearly violate the laws of the U.S. – the U.S. Constitution. Obama has no legal authority to grant any person or persons the right to usurp the law. Such actions taken by former president Bush and current president Obama are clearly deemed to be abuses and usurpations. The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States of America and as such “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”.

Can Obama declare martial law to put down insurrection and rebellion?

Long standing laws declares that Obama doesn’t have the authority to use the U.S. military to declare martial law in the United States.  The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the US President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 – 10 U.S.C. § 335. The law limits the Presidential power severly, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection (insurrection is defined as a violent uprising against an authority or government). Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

It would be illegal for Barack Hussein Obama to use the U.S. military for law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that restricts the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress.

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment

The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122 ), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.

Senator Leahy opposed the bill and stated on September 19, 2006 “we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy.”

On February 7, 2007, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) introduced legislation that would revert the Insurrection Act to its previous state.

In 2008, the changes made by Bush were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 SEC. 1068., reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. ~ John F. Kennedy, in a speech at the White House, 13 March 1962

Short URL: https://presscore.ca/news/?p=3746