by Doug Thompson
Dec 9th, 2005,

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper….”

….Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States….”

….And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

Now, in my opinion:

When bush made the statement “the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.” He violated his Oath of Office.

More importantly, when the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. (Those members of Congress who voted for the Act violated their Oath of Office)

Legislative history

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the “Patriot Act”, is a statute enacted by the United States Government that President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The contrived acronym stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).
The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It has been criticized for weakening protections of civil liberties, as well as being overbroad in regard to its circumstances of application. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act’s provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act’s original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10th, 2006.

Note: Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and
Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

Note: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, has just recently been upheld by the courts
as unconstitutional

The
Posse Comitatus
Act of 1878

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 – An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

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.
10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375
Sec. 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.
18 U.S.C. 1385
Sec. 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.
Editor’s Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

“Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.” — NewsMax, November 21, 2003

In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government’s ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law–under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

Note: the Bush administration enacted the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act circumventing the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 changing important legal
principles, which limit the U.S. government’s ability to use the military to intervene
in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it
necessary, to institute martial law–under which the military takes direct control over
civilian administration.

The National Guard is oldest part of the US Army and traces it roots back to the old militias of colonial times. For most of the history of the US, the militias or National Guard provided the bulk of Army personnel, with the Regular Army only making up a small fraction of the US Army. Each state has it’s own National Guard units, with the governor being the “Command-in-Chief” of that particular state’s Guard units. Unlike the Regular Army, the National Guard has the ability to perform domestic police and rescue actions; and except during war time, are usually only deployed domestically. However, the President has the ability to Federalize any National Guard units, which means they essentially become no different than Regular Army troops. Once National Guard units are Federalized, they can not longer perform domestic police actions; and are forbidden from being deployed domestically by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This same act also forbids the Regular US Army from being deployed for domestic actions.

Duncan v. Kahanamoku

“Our system of government clearly is the antithesis of total military rule and the founders of this country are not likely to have contemplated complete military dominance…. They were opposed to governments that placed in the hands of one man the power to make, interpret and enforce the laws….The established principle of every free people is, that the law shall alone govern; and to it the military must always yield“ .’(95)

Now, considering the above court decision one could assume that the enactment of Martial Law for the purpose of total military dominance would be unconstitutional.

“The military should always be kept in subjection to the laws of the country to which it belongs, and that he is no friend to the Republic who advocates the contrary.”

H.R.5122 was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and will take effect October 1, 2007 (unless an earlier effective date is established by regulation). “On the same day, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abolishes the legal protection of habeas corpus, authorizes the president to detain and jail anyone (even US citizens) without charge and subject them to harsh interrogation that may or may not involve torture.” [5]

Note: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, has just recently been upheld by the courts
as unconstitutional

The
Posse Comitatus
Act of 1878

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 – An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

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.
10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375
Sec. 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.
18 U.S.C. 1385
Sec. 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.
Editor’s Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

“Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.” — NewsMax, November 21, 2003

In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government’s ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law–under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

Note: the Bush administration enacted the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act circumventing the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 changing important legal
principles, which limit the U.S. government’s ability to use the military to intervene
in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it
necessary, to institute martial law–under which the military takes direct control over
civilian administration.

The National Guard is oldest part of the US Army and traces it roots back to the old militias of colonial times. For most of the history of the US, the militias or National Guard provided the bulk of Army personnel, with the Regular Army only making up a small fraction of the US Army. Each state has it’s own National Guard units, with the governor being the “Command-in-Chief” of that particular state’s Guard units. Unlike the Regular Army, the National Guard has the ability to perform domestic police and rescue actions; and except during war time, are usually only deployed domestically. However, the President has the ability to Federalize any National Guard units, which means they essentially become no different than Regular Army troops. Once National Guard units are Federalized, they can not longer perform domestic police actions; and are forbidden from being deployed domestically by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This same act also forbids the Regular US Army from being deployed for domestic actions.

Duncan v. Kahanamoku

“Our system of government clearly is the antithesis of total military rule and the founders of this country are not likely to have contemplated complete military dominance…. They were opposed to governments that placed in the hands of one man the power to make, interpret and enforce the laws….The established principle of every free people is, that the law shall alone govern; and to it the military must always yield“ .’(95)

Now, considering the above court decision one could assume that the enactment of Martial Law for the purpose of total military dominance would be unconstitutional.

“The military should always be kept in subjection to the laws of the country to which it belongs, and that he is no friend to the Republic who advocates the contrary.”