Since the moderator says it's ok, here is the first half of the John Galt article that I posted above. Again, this tied everything together in SUCH a fresh, understandable way. Wonderfully written and unfortunately, I feel he is right on target. There are some videos at the original link that did not cut and paste here; all worth watching in the context of this article.

This is a bit tough to read quickly. It is well worth the time to read this thoughtfully and consider the author's argument for his conclusion.

So where are the good guys? Where are the public officials who are supposed to rise up against what's amounting to a coup? Aren't there ANY knights on white horses left in our government??

******


By John Galt
October 14, 2011 – 05:00 ET

The markets are in turmoil, the radicals are camped in various cities with faux protests against whatever, and the world is starting to despise America again because of our weak, vacillating leadership.

1979-1980 under President Carter comes to mind but in this case, but the danger is far more serious than a Soviet nuke accidentally being fired on a major U.S. city, in fact the detonation will occur due to our own “citizens” who elect to implore the government to take radical action to support and save their political agenda of change, rather than offer ideas which would benefit our society as a whole.

Thus the most dangerous period of time in American history since the Civil War is upon us again and sadly, the leadership in our nation is lacking.

Or is it?

Excuse me while I adjust my tinfoil hat, but as one witnesses the garbage dump being created in various city parks around the nation via the “Occupy” movement, the idea that the extreme left acting coincidentally with a period of economic turmoil in world markets begs the question:

Can the President act unilaterally to stem a disruption to United States domestic financial activity?

According to Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. the answer is yes:


(Source: The Daily Caller, Jackson, Jr: Obama should ‘declare a national emergency,’ add jobs with ‘extra-constitutional’ action, October 12, 2011)

Beyond the extraordinary commentary by the Congressman and the admission that the United States is still in a recession, the question as posed is yes, the President does have such authority as granted in U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Section 1701a:

(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.

(Source: Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, U.S. Code)

It is quite apparent that since the evolution of the National Emergencies Act (Title 50, U.S.C.) the powers exercised since Lincoln are not only permissible as validated by the lack of intervention and action by the U.S. courts, but indeed, President Obama does indeed have the power to suspend Federal law, modify or dismiss contract law, and intervene in economic activity due to a declared national emergency.

How did this power evolve and the interpretation that the Executive Branch has such authority? Let’s review a little history from way, way , way back which culminates with the George W. Bush administration via the National Emergencies Act.

I. Evolution of Executive Authority to Intervene in Economic Activity

The original source of Presidential power can be traced back to the Civil War and the broad, somewhat unconstitutional actions of President Abraham Lincoln operating under the idea of extraordinary circumstances due to the conflict to allow the management and intervention into economic activity during a period of war. This view was expanded by the first of the Progressive Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt who believed the Executive Branch had a duty to use all powers available  to the office to engage in any actions which were necessary for the nation. Indeed, it was Roosevelt’s belief that, for the President, “it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws.” (Source: Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography ,New York: Macmillan, 1913, pp. 388-389 via CRS 98-505 by Harold C. Relyea, August 30, 2007)

However, as broad as this power was, the true expansion of this discretion occurred in 1917 under guess who:

President Woodrow Wilson

For those of my readers who are fans of Glenn Beck, this should not come as a surprise as during the First World War, Wilson engaged in actions which suspended the entire Bill of Rights for some citizens at almost every level and economically via the creation of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (Click here to read entire law from Treasury.gov). Needless to say, every President since the Progressive era has exercised wide discretion by engaging in variations of this law via Executive Order or other decree since that era.

Fast forward to the post September 11, 2011 time period where emergency decrees and actions were being issued almost daily as the National Emergencies Act (Title 50, U.S.C., section 34). President Bush stretched those powers on September 8, 2005 where under a new interpretation of those authorities delegated under the act, he issued Proclamation 7924 which was entered into the U.S. Federal Register as follows:

View this document on Scribd

Please notice the key portion of this document:
And, as to such contracts to be performed in such jurisdictions, I do hereby suspend, until otherwise provided, the provisions of any Executive Order, proclamation, rule, regulation, or other directive providing for the payment of wages, which provisions are dependent upon determinations by the Secretary of Labor under section 3142 of title 40, United States Code;

This does not sound like a Constitutional action and was questioned in fact by a Congressional Research Service report, National Emergency Powers, prepared by Harold C. Relyea on August 30, 2007:

An anomaly in the activation of emergency powers appears to have occurred on September 8, 2005, when President George W. Bush issued a proclamation suspending certain wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act in the course of the federal response to the Gulf coast disaster resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Instead of following the historical pattern of declaring a national emergency to activate the suspension authority, the President set out the following rationale in the proclamation: “I find that the conditions caused by Hurricane Katrina constitute a‘national emergency’ within the meaning of section 3147 of title 40, United States  Code.” A more likely course of action seemingly would have been for the President to declare a national emergency pursuant to the National Emergencies Act and to specify that he was, accordingly, activating the suspension authority. Although the propriety of the President’s action in this case might have been ultimately determined in the courts, the proclamation was revoked on November 3, 2005, by a proclamation in which the President cited the National Emergencies Act as authority, in part, for his action.

(CRS 98-505, pp. 18-19, available at this link)

Thus a non-foreign threat to U.S. economic activity was used to invoke those powers delegated under the National Emergencies Act and the precedent was established that a President does indeed have the power to engage in the suspension of basic Constitutional rights proscribed via the Bill of Rights to suspend established Federal and private contract law. Thus the video from the Congressman above via the Daily Caller should become even more disturbing to the reader.

II. The Old New National Emergency

The extension of Title 50, the National Emergencies Act, by President Obama should not have come as any surprise to any logical thinking individual. No President in modern history has ever surrendered the enhanced powers envisioned under the first Progressive Presidents and in fact have slowly evolved an expansion of those powers as outlined above. Unfortunately for the American people, the idea that a “national emergency” which would allow such broad action to occur has escaped their daily lives and selection of men of character to serve as their representatives.

The emergency as outlined above in the video is ongoing to millions of citizens and despite the hypocritical Occupy Wall Street faux protesters, the risks to our financial system and viability of our economy is still in doubt. The financial system is being buffeted by a resumption in the foreclosure tidal wave which promises to be far more severe than the 2007-2009 time period due to the stagnant economy and declining wages of the majority of citizens. This promises to destroy more communities forcing an acceleration in municipal bankruptcies (See Municide February 21, 2008) and a probable growth in the number of corporate bankruptcies (Reuters via The Huffington Post October 11, 2011: Corporate Bankruptcies Could Return With New Recession: Experts). Such a vicious cycle will certainly increase unemployment far beyond the real number of 22% as illustrated by John Williams of www.shadowstats.com:

As this old crisis returns for another period of massive deleveraging which will induce a wave of deflation that destroys the value of assets for most average Americans, the crisis will expand beyond the unemployed and into the Baby Boomer and retirement age groups creating a new societal and economic crisis far worse than the 2007-2009 recession. However, this disaster does provide an opportunity as Rahm Emanuel reminded us in 2008:

****

....and here, go back to the first post and continue reading for the rest of the article.