The Communists J’s that make up 97% of Congressional Seating are festering inside the Congress, the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive.. and have in thousands of instances tried to nullify the U.S. Constitution through the expedient of so-called “executive orders.”
All U.S. Presidents since Lincoln are guilty of violating their oath of office by issuing “executive orders”. It amazes me why this is allowed to stand, year after year, for if the President can act like a “King” and pass any “law” his heart desires, then what need do we have of a Senate and House of Representatives?
If the American people are satisfied w/ a king in the White House, let us send the Senators and Representatives home and save us, the American People, vast amounts of money!
This is no idle statement.
“Executive Orders” are proclamations!
If the President is allowed to get away w/ issuing proclamations on every whim and fancy that enters his head, then indeed, he assumes the function of a king.
The President of the United States has no authority to issue proclamations.
“Executive Order” proclamations violate the oath of office taken by the President a law-breaker, like any other common criminal, and never was there such a dire need to watch the criminal activities issuing forth from the White House in the form of proclamations, than there is in the term of off of Pres Donald J. Trump.
If we are to uncover the truth about proclamations, we have to go to the Founding Fathers, one of whom was Judge St. George Tucker, a soldier-hero of the American Revolution and a professor of law at the William and Mary University.
His book, “Blackstone’s Commentaries” (title shortened) is the ultimate authority for much of what the Founding Father wrote into the U.S. Constitution. Published in 1803, and since that year, mentioned on enumerable occasions in the Congressional Record.
Here is what Judge St. George Tucker had to say on the subject of proclamations, pages 346-347:
“The right of issuing proclamations is one of the prerogatives of the crown of England. No such power being expressly given in the Federal Constitution, it was doubted, upon a particular occasion, whether the president possessed any such authority.”
About the only thing a U.S. President can proclaim is in the realm of a day of mourning, a day of Thanksgiving, and this is how George Washington used it. He never, ever, attempted to usurp it for other purposes to which he was not entitled.
On page 547:
“But if a proclamation should enjoin any thing to be done, which neither the law of nations, nor any previous act of the legislature, nor any treaty or compact should have made a duty, such an injunction would not only be merely void, but (also) an infringement of the Constitution.”
There be no further discussion as to whether a U.S. Presidnet may issue a proclamation, also known as an “executive order” which is not mentioned nor expressly implied in the Constitution in the same way that the word “proclamation” is not mentioned; therfore both “executive order” and “proclamation” are prohibititions of the power, null and void and no law at all and of no effect.
The ONLY “executive orders” President Trump and the rest can issue would be to order his White House staff to put their desks in order, come to work on time, and have fresh flowers in his office every day; things of that nature.
We need to strengthen the foregoing contention by noting that the word, “proclamation” was expressly kept out of the Constitution for the reason that the word was always was associated w/ monarchs and the aristocracy of Europe at the time the Founding Fathers were discussing the Constitution, and they deemed it advisable to expressly exclude “proclamations” because of this association, plus the reason that aristocracy and titles of aristocracy are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
The term “proclamation” wasn’t abused up until the Civil War, and would most probably never have been abused but for the false step taken by Lincoln. This contention is spelled out in the Congressional Record, Appendix House, Feb 12, 1917, under the title, “War Legislation in Lincoln’s Time” by William J. Graham, pages 134-137:
“Habeas Corpus—Suspension of the writ, Pres. Lincoln was authorized by an act of March 3, 1863 (12 State. L., 755-758), to suspend the writ of habeas corpus: That during the present rebellion (note the use of the word, rebellion, instead of war) the President of the United States is authorized to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus in any case throught the United State or any part therof.”
This action was based upon Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. But is was, nevertheless, a clear violation of the Constitution for Lincoln to take this power, and of course, he had other powers and did not need to resort to the treachery of proclamations. The misuse of the word “rebellion,” whereas it should have been “war,” is the key to Lincoln’s unconstitutional action. By so doing, Lincoln set himself up as a king, and he knew full well that what he was doing was a violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What is not so well known is that he tried and failed to use the Emancipation Proclamation to get the slaves of the South to rebel against their masters. It failed because the slaves stayed loyal to their slave owners.
You read it right. This idea that slaves were getting beaten the hell out of is ridiculous. At least from the South. The boys in the South used the slaves to tend farm so they could go to University in Europe.
