Let's look at our US CONSTITUTION which is of course still in place with all our 300 years of Federal court and statutes enshrining our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE civil rights and liberties-----to see how our founding fathers worked hard to create CIVIL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES separate and INDEPENDENT of our public militia.
First, let's take a look at GEORGE HARRISON'S ----MY SWEET LORDS-----After 800 years ---that being the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN-----bringing a CONSTITUTION to UK and Europe ----
DO WE REALLY NEED A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION SAY THE HOUSE OF LORDS?
It seems not if UK, Europe, US, Canada are MOVING FORWARD back to 1000BC DARK AGES---so, here in US these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA our US 99% have not seen ANY adherence to US CONSTITUTION by those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players
MY SWEET LORDS getting a little itchy under the wigs -------where does it end in MOVING FORWARD----BYE BYE MAGNA CARTA and the rights of MY SWEET LORDS!
After 800 years, Britain finally asks: Do we need a written constitution?
By Griff Witte
June 7, 2015
LONDON -- Eight-hundred years ago this month, rebellious barons and a despised, cash-strapped king gathered in a verdant riverside meadow 20 miles outside London to seal an agreement that would change the course of history.
The words of the Magna Carta have inspired democratic movements the world over and formed a basis for countless constitutions — most notably the one crafted by another group of king-defying aristocrats over a long and sweaty Philadelphia summer.
Yet somehow, despite birthing the principles of due process and equal rights under law, Britain never got around to codifying a constitution of its own. Now, with this ancient land experiencing teenage-style existential angst, many Britons wonder whether it is finally time to change that.
Britain is one of just three major democracies that lack formal, written constitutions. Its empire has come and gone, it has triumphed in world wars, and yet it has never seemed to need a written constitution.
But Britain has rarely faced the sort of fundamental challenges to its identity that it is confronting today. Scotland nearly split the United Kingdom apart in an independence referendum last September and may try to do so again after a landslide election victory for nationalists last month. Britain as a whole will soon have to decide whether it is part of Europe. And because of the country’s peculiar electoral system, last month’s parliamentary vote produced perhaps the most distorted results in British history.
Meet the man who drafted a British constitution
That web of problems offers few easy answers. Advocates of a written constitution say none of the big problems are likely to be solved unless Britain does what others accomplished long ago and goes through the difficult process of writing down some basic rules.
“We’ve got a long tradition of helping other countries do it, without recognizing that we need to do it ourselves,” said Jeremy Purvis, a member of the House of Lords who introduced a bill last week that, if passed, would trigger a constitutional convention. “But this is the moment.”
Quest for a constitution
In truth, Britain does have a constitution, although only the most sophisticated legal scholars, perhaps with the aid of archaeologists, know where to find it.
Instead of one document that can be stuffed into a breast pocket or waved about by politicians for dramatic effect, the British constitution lies scattered across centuries’ worth of common law, acts of Parliament, treaty obligations and historical conventions. Much is left unsaid: There is, for instance, no formal job description for the prime minister, and Parliament conducted a multi-year inquiry during the last parliamentary term to figure it out.
British schoolchildren learn little about their nation’s constitution, and even the Magna Carta, which was not itself a constitution and whose many archaic provisions have largely been repealed, often seems to get less respect here than it does in the United States. Pressed by David Letterman on what Magna Carta means in English, Prime Minister David Cameron famously flubbed the question. (“Great Charter” is the right answer.)
“People should know the rules of their governance,” said Graham Allen, a member of Parliament who until recently chaired the constitutional reform committee. “But I don’t think most Britons even know we have a constitution.”
Allen has long waged what has seemed at times a quixotic quest to talk Britain into writing down what it stands for. His committee even commissioned a four-year effort by scholars at King’s College London to craft a model constitution that can be used as a blueprint if the nation ever comes around on the issue, which tends to rate low in surveys of which issues matter most to voters.
The result was published last year. At 71 pages, it lays out everything from the formal name of the country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) to a bill of rights.
Allen then sought feedback from the public, and “for the Jeffersons or the Mandelas amongst us,” he promised a bottle of House of Commons champagne to whoever could come up with the most eloquent preamble. The winning entry begins: “United, we stand in celebration of the diverse voices that make up the great chorus of our nation.”
Others have taken their own stabs at a codified constitution, which, if enacted, would remove Britain from a small, constitutionally starved club that includes New Zealand and Israel. The London School of Economics recently unveiled a crowd-sourced document pulled together from online contributions and brainstorming events around the country, including “a constitutional carnival” highlighted by musical performances and generous servings of cotton candy.
Holding the union together
The constitution issue has gained more prominence lately, not only because of the anniversary of the Magna Carta, which will be marked June 15 with an event graced by the queen and foreign dignitaries, but also because of strains on the United Kingdom.
The threat of Scottish independence is felt most acutely. The United Kingdom is not one nation, but four — Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For centuries, power has been monopolized in London, but demands are rising for control closer to home. The response has been scattershot and unbalanced, with each nation receiving different levels of power amid increasing tensions within the union.
Purvis, the House of Lords member who is pushing for a constitutional convention, said the United Kingdom needs to refresh and define itself to survive.
“In the vacuum of there not being a statement about what holds the union together, it allows nationalism in England and Scotland to flourish,” he said. “I want there to be something that holds together as Britishness.”
His bill may clear the House of Lords, but it is unlikely to pass the all-important House of Commons. Cameron’s Conservative Party, which gained a majority of seats in the House of Commons in last month’s election, despite winning just 37 percent of the vote, has not ruled out the idea of a convention but has generally been cool to it.
And what Cameron’s party wants, it gets. Britain’s system is sometimes referred to as an elected dictatorship because it lacks a true separation of powers. The courts have no mandate to vet the laws, and Parliament generally falls in line with what the prime minister and his government decide.
That’s one of the main reasons that Allen has pushed so hard for a new approach. But in a reflection of current reality, Allen’s constitutional reform committee was effectively disbanded last week.
“Government is an 800-pound gorilla. Parliament is a mouse. If the mouse squeaks, the gorilla stomps on the mouse,” Allen said. “I was stomped on.”
Defenders of Britain’s traditional ways say there is good reason not to change what has worked for this country for ages. Philip Norton, a member of the House of Lords and a constitutional scholar, said that codifying the constitution would amount to fitting the country with “a straitjacket” when it needs to be flexible enough to evolve with changing times.
“It’s undesirable, unnecessary and unachievable,” Norton said.
Anthony King, a University of Essex political scientist, said there is no doubt that Britain’s political structures need significant renovation. But trying to craft a written constitution might only deepen the country’s problems, given the quality of those likely to be in charge of such a process.
“If you look at the people who drew up the American constitution, here was a group with outstanding intellectual capacity — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, George Mason,” he said. “You couldn’t replicate that in Britain in 2015 — probably not in most countries in 2015.”
Constitutions, King said, usually arise out of major upheaval, such as war or revolution. That spark has never been lit for Britain, and he said he doubts that the country’s current challenges — serious as they may be — will be enough to force the issue.
“The system is unsatisfactory, but it’s not ghastly,” he said. “We’re going to muddle along. Brits pride themselves on that.”
We started the week by pointing to NDAA making the global private praetorian military corporation not only THE INTERNET OF EVERYTHING----but all that is US economy, civil government, and installing a MILITARY for our public policing and security. Of course---none of that is LEGAL----it is all US UNCONSTITUTIONAL -----it is an attack on our US national sovereignty which of course NDAA pretends to PROTECT.
We want to make clear-------our US Constitution and 300 years of US Federal law does not allow NDAA. It is a US national security THREAT------the US cannot have a military structure that is STANDING during peacetime----ergo, funding cycles of two years opening the door to temporary funding. It cannot use a military structure in place of our public policing---even in civil riots. That is why we have PUBLIC NATIONAL GUARDS in each state. So, absolutely NONE of the MOVING FORWARD global private military security and policing IS LEGAL.
When we allow our US CONSTITUTION be tied to GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA CONSTITUTION-----then we are NOT sovereign citizens and subject to the same CONTINUOUS WAR structures promoted by KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH for several decades overseas.
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.
The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.
The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.
The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."
Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia. Accordingly, this is the only clause related to military affairs that includes a time limit on appropriations. The appropriations power of Congress is a very powerful tool, and one that the Framers saw as particularly necessary in the case of a standing army. Indeed, some individuals argued that army appropriations should be made on a yearly basis. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry raised precisely this point. Roger Sherman replied that the appropriations were permitted, not required, for two years. The problem, he said, was that in a time of emergency, Congress might not be in session when an annual army appropriation was needed.
Since the time of the Constitution, legal developments based on the clause have been legislatively driven, and barely the subject of judicial interpretation. With the establishment of a Department of Defense in 1947, Army appropriations have been subsumed by a single department-wide appropriation that includes the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force (established in 1947), as well as other agencies of the department. Despite periodic congressional efforts to move to a two-year appropriations cycle, the annual appropriations for the military are the rule, although not for the reasons that animated Elbridge Gerry during the Constitutional Convention. In addition, the Armed Services Committees of Congress have taken on the responsibility of authorizing almost all aspects of the defense budget as well as appropriating the funds for the services.
The character of the United States Army has changed significantly since the constitutional period in two fundamental ways. The first was its way of mobilizing. The second was its orientation and purpose.
With respect to wartime mobilization, Hamilton and later John C. Calhoun envisioned the United States Army as an "expansible" force. A small peacetime establishment would serve as the foundation for a greatly expanded force in times of emergency. The emergency ended, the citizen-soldiers would demobilize and return to their civilian occupations. With modifications, this was essentially the model for mobilization from the Mexican War through World War II. During the Cold War, the United States for the first time in its history maintained a large military establishment during peacetime. Even so, the fact that soldiers were drafted meant that citizen-soldiers continued to be the foundation of the Army. But with the end of the draft in 1973, the citizen-soldier was superseded by the long-term professional.
The draft, of course, has been a controversial issue. Although compulsory military service can be traced to the colonial and revolutionary period in America, it usually involved the states obligating service in the militia. The United States did not have a national draft until the Civil War, and did not resort to a peacetime draft until 1940. Opponents of a draft have used a number of constitutional arguments in support of their position. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that a draft is constitutional. This includes a draft during peacetime and the power to dispatch draftees overseas. Nor does a draft intrude on the state's right to maintain a militia. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). An example of the Court's reasoning is found in Holmes v. United States (1968): "the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiencies, is not limited by the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency." Nonetheless, the Court has, for some time now, been broadening exemptions to the draft, such as those with conscientious objections to war.
The purpose of the United States Army has not always been primarily to win the nation's wars, but to act as a constabulary. Soldiers were often used during the antebellum period to enforce the fugitive slave laws and suppress domestic violence. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 permitted federal marshals to call on the posse comitatus to aid in returning a slave to his owner, and Attorney General Caleb Cushing issued an opinion that included the Army in the posse comitatus.
In response, Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which prohibited the use of the military to aid civil authorities in enforcing the law or suppressing civil disturbances unless expressly ordered to do so by the President. The Army welcomed the legislation. The use of soldiers as a posse removed them from their own chain of command and placed them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place. As a result, many officers came to believe that the involvement of the Army in domestic policing was corrupting the institution.
In 1904, Secretary of War Elihu Root reoriented the Army away from constabulary duties to a mission focused on defeating the conventional forces of other states. This view has shaped United States military culture since at least World War II and continues to this day. Whether the exigencies of a modern war against terrorism once again changes the military's mission towards domestic order is yet to be seen.
Professor of National Security Affairs
Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute
United States Naval War College
There are two ways global banking 1% have PRETENDED to circumvent these US CONSTITUTIONAL laws-----first, they tied our US STATE DEPARTMENT to the global private praetorian military working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA. This was how HILLARY CLINTON got the name KILLERY HILLARY. Earlier, global banking 1% attached these privatized mercenary groups to CIA saying---this is not THE MILITARY.
What we are hearing today as MOVING FORWARD makes obvious US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are filling with global private military corporations-------well, we aren't using THE US ARMY. Indeed.
Which branches of the US government hires mercenaries?
Specifically, which branch contracted Blackwater in 2007?
The U.S. State Department oddly enough was the main contractor of Blackwater (and others). No one knows how much intelligence agencies or private businesses doing rebuilding or supply work there may have as well. The military rarely does since it's either paying 3-4x the salary of it's own former soldiers it did the training investment in and can't control nearly as much or people that wouldn't meet the military's standards so again are high risk to use (an issue with mercenaries and local auxiliaries since the dawn of time.)
Obviously, any sovereign nation claiming to be a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has a constitution creating CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT----AND CIVILIAN CONTROL OF MILITARY.
So, what do global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS do to advance DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE inside our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES?
They make our CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT------MARXIST. NDAA has that goal as the military is woven into EVERY civil agency, branch of government---all while being called CIVILIAN.
GLOBAL MILITARY JUNTA----WE ARE TOLD WORKS WITH A CIVILIAN DICTATOR WHO PRETENDS TO BE ELECTED IN RIGGED AND FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS.
This is why global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA always send in a far-right wing FASCIST MADMAN like Hitler/Stalin/Trump/Pence to be that CIVILIAN DICTATOR working for global private military corporations.
Civilian control of the military
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington's writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarized the civilian control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority".
Civilian control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable, liberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. One example is the People's Republic of China. Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party," reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China (and in general) as decision-makers in Marxist-Leninist and Maoist theories of democratic centralism.
As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn "civilian control is not a fact but a process". Affirmations of respect for the values of civilian control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civilian leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governing politicians. National Leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter the bureaucratic arena to advocate for or against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear-cut lines of civilian control.
Admiral John B. Nathman (far right) and Admiral William J. Fallon salute during honors arrival of Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England at a change of command ceremony in 2005. A subordinate of the civilian Secretary of Defense, The Secretary of the Navy is the civilian Head of the Department of the Navy, which includes the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps.
Advocates of civilian control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character. The words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men" (also frequently rendered as "War is too important to be left to the generals"), wryly reflect this view. Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civilian control advocates as best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their political representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that
[t]he point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it .
A state's effective use of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the military to supply this aspect of their authority. The danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, and use physical force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes; in the worst cases, this may lead to a coup or military dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process. This poses the paradox that "because we fear others we create an institution of violence to protect us, but then we fear the very institution we created for protection". Also, military personnel, because of the nature of their job, are much more willing to use force to settle disputes than civilians because they are trained military personnel that specialize strictly in warfare. For instance, in the Empire of Japan, prime ministers and almost everyone in high positions were military people, and advocated and basically pressured the leaders to start military conflicts against China and others because they believed that they would ultimately be victorious.
Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it" . Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who wrote that "[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."
In Federalist No. 8, one of the Federalist Papers documenting the ideas of some of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton worried that maintaining a large standing army would be a dangerous and expensive undertaking. In his principal argument for the ratification of the proposed constitution, he argued that only by maintaining a strong union could the new country avoid such a pitfall. Using the European experience as a negative example and the British experience as a positive one, he presented the idea of a strong nation protected by a navy with no need of a standing army. The implication was that control of a large military force is, at best, difficult and expensive, and at worst invites war and division. He foresaw the necessity of creating a civilian government that kept the military at a distance.
James Madison, another writer of several of the Federalist Papers, expressed his concern about a standing military in comments before the Constitutional Convention in June 1787:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. 
The United States Constitution placed considerable limitations on the legislature. Coming from a tradition of legislative superiority in government, many were concerned that the proposed Constitution would place so many limitations on the legislature that it would become impossible for such a body to prevent an executive from starting a war. Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 26 that it would be equally as bad for a legislature to be unfettered by any other agency and that restraints would actually be more likely to preserve liberty. James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, continued Hamilton’s argument that distributing powers among the various branches of government would prevent any one group from gaining so much power as to become unassailable. In Federalist No. 48, however, Madison warned that while the separation of powers is important, the departments must not be so far separated as to have no ability to control the others.
Finally, in Federalist No. 51, Madison argued that to create a government that relied primarily on the good nature of the incumbent to ensure proper government was folly. Institutions must be in place to check incompetent or malevolent leaders. Most importantly, no single branch of government ought to have control over any single aspect of governing. Thus, all three branches of government must have some control over the military, and the system of checks and balances maintained among the other branches would serve to help control the military.
Hamilton and Madison thus had two major concerns: (1) the detrimental effect on liberty and democracy of a large standing army and (2) the ability of an unchecked legislature or executive to take the country to war precipitously. These concerns drove American military policy for the first century and a half of the country’s existence. While armed forces were built up during wartime, the pattern after every war up to and including World War II was to demobilize quickly and return to something approaching pre-war force levels. However, with the advent of the Cold War in the 1950s, the need to create and maintain a sizable peacetime military force engendered new concerns of militarism and about how such a large force would affect civil–military relations in the United States.
Domestic law enforcement
The United States' Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits any part of the Army or the Air Force (since the U.S. Air Force evolved from the U.S. Army) from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities unless they do so pursuant to lawful authority. Similar prohibitions apply to the Navy and Marine Corps by service regulation, since the actual Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to them. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus since it normally operates under the Department of Homeland Security versus the Department of Defense and enforces U.S. laws, even when operating as a service with the U.S. Navy.
The act is often misunderstood to prohibit any use of federal military forces in law enforcement, but this is not the case. For example, the President has explicit authority under the Constitution and federal law to use federal forces or federalized militias to enforce the laws of the United States. The act's primary purpose is to prevent local law enforcement officials from utilizing federal forces in this way by forming a "posse" consisting of federal Soldiers or Airmen.
There are, however, practical political concerns in the United States that make the use of federal military forces less desirable for use in domestic law enforcement. Under the U.S. Constitution, law and order is primarily a matter of state concern. As a practical matter, when military forces are necessary to maintain domestic order and enforce the laws, state militia forces under state control i.e., that state's Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard are usually the force of first resort, followed by federalized state militia forces i.e., the Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard "federalized" as part of the U.S. Army and/or U.S. Air Force, with active federal forces (to include "federal" reserve component forces other than the National Guard) being the least politically palatable option.
Maoist military-political theories of people's war and democratic centralism also support the subordination of military forces to the directives of the communist party (although the guerrilla experience of many early leading Communist Party of China figures may make their status as civilians somewhat ambiguous). In a 1929 essay On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Mao explicitly refuted "comrades [who] regard military affairs and politics as opposed to each other and [who] refuse to recognize that military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks", prescribing increased scrutiny of the People's Liberation Army by the Party and greater political training of officers and enlistees as a means of reducing military autonomy . In Mao's theory, the military — which serves both as a symbol of the revolution and an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat — is not merely expected to defer to the direction of the ruling non-uniformed Party members (who today exercise control in the People's Republic of China through the Central Military Commission), but also to actively participate in the revolutionary political campaigns of the Maoist era.
Methods of asserting civilian control
An immensely popular hero of World War II, General Douglas MacArthur's public insistence on the need to expand the Korean War, over the objections of President Harry S. Truman, led to the termination of his command.
Civilian leaders cannot usually hope to challenge their militaries by means of force, and thus must guard against any potential usurpation of powers through a combination of policies, laws, and the inculcation of the values of civilian control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent the disproportionate strength that a country's military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of power in order to enforce the civilian control of the military.
A civilian commander-in-chief
The establishment of a civilian president or other government figure as the military's commander-in-chief within the chain of command is one legal construct for the propagation of civilian control.
In the United States, Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the commander-in-chief. Ambiguity over when the President could take military action without declaring war resulted in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
American presidents have used the power to dismiss high-ranking officers as a means to assert policy and strategic control. Examples include Barack Obama in the War in Afghanistan, Harry S. Truman in the Korean War and Abraham Lincoln in the American Civil War.
Composition of the military
Differing opinions exist as to the desirability of distinguishing the military as a body separate from the larger society. In The Soldier and the State, Huntington argued for what he termed "objective civilian control", "focus[ing] on a politically neutral, autonomous, and professional officer corps" . This autonomous professionalism, it is argued, best inculcates an esprit de corps and sense of distinct military corporateness that prevents political interference by sworn servicemen and -women. Conversely, the tradition of the citizen-soldier holds that "civilianizing" the military is the best means of preserving the loyalty of the armed forces towards civilian authorities, by preventing the development of an independent "caste" of warriors that might see itself as existing fundamentally apart from the rest of society. In the early history of the United States, according to Michael Cairo,
[the] principle of civilian control... embodied the idea that every qualified citizen was responsible for the defense of the nation and the defense of liberty, and would go to war, if necessary. Combined with the idea that the military was to embody democratic principles and encourage citizen participation, the only military force suitable to the Founders was a citizen militia, which minimized divisions between officers and the enlisted .
In a less egalitarian practice, societies may also blur the line between "civilian" and "military" leadership by making direct appointments of non-professionals (frequently social elites benefitting from patronage or nepotism) to an officer rank. A more invasive method, most famously practiced in the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, involves active monitoring of the officer corps through the appointment of political commissars, posted parallel to the uniformed chain of command and tasked with ensuring that national policies are carried out by the armed forces. The regular rotation of soldiers through a variety of different postings is another effective tool for reducing military autonomy, by limiting the potential for soldiers' attachment to any one particular military unit. Some governments place responsibility for approving promotions or officer candidacies with the civilian government, requiring some degree of deference on the part of officers seeking advancement through the ranks.
During the term of Lyndon B. Johnson, the President and his advisors often chose specific bombing targets in Vietnam on the basis of larger geopolitical calculations, without professional knowledge of the weapons or tactics. Apropos of LBJ's direction of the bombing campaign in Vietnam, no air warfare specialists attended the Tuesday lunches at which the targeting decisions were made.
Historically, direct control over military forces deployed for war was hampered by the technological limits of command, control, and communications; national leaders, whether democratically elected or not, had to rely on local commanders to execute the details of a military campaign, or risk centrally-directed orders' obsolescence by the time they reached the front lines. The remoteness of government from the action allowed professional soldiers to claim military affairs as their own particular sphere of expertise and influence; upon entering a state of war, it was often expected that the generals and field marshals would dictate strategy and tactics, and the civilian leadership would defer to their informed judgments.
Improvements in information technology and its application to wartime command and control (a process sometimes labeled the "Revolution in Military Affairs") has allowed civilian leaders removed from the theater of conflict to assert greater control over the actions of distant military forces. Precision-guided munitions and real-time videoconferencing with field commanders now allow the civilian leadership to intervene even at the tactical decision-making level, designating particular targets for destruction or preservation based on political calculations or the counsel of non-uniformed advisors.
Contesting civilian control
While civilian control forms the normative standard in almost every society outside of military dictatorships, its practice has often been the subject of pointed criticism from both uniformed and non-uniformed observers, who object to what they view as the undue "politicization" of military affairs, especially when elected officials or political appointees micromanage the military, rather than giving the military general goals and objectives (like "Defeat Country X"), and have the military decide how best to carry those orders out. By placing responsibility for military decision-making in the hands of non-professional civilians, critics argue, the dictates of military strategy are subsumed to the political, with the effect of unduly restricting the fighting capabilities of the nation's armed forces for what should be immaterial or otherwise lower priority concerns. For example, U.S. President Bill Clinton faced frequent allegations throughout his time in office (particularly after the Battle of Mogadishu) that he was ignoring military goals out of political and media pressure — a phenomenon termed the "CNN effect". Politicians who personally lack military training and experience but who seek to engage the nation in military action may risk resistance and being labeled "chickenhawks" by those who disagree with their political goals.
In contesting these priorities, members of the professional military leadership and their non-uniformed supporters may participate in the bureaucratic bargaining process of the state's policy-making apparatus, engaging in what might be termed a form of regulatory capture as they attempt to restrict the policy options of elected officials when it comes to military matters. An example of one such set of conditions is the "Weinberger Doctrine", which sought to forestall another American intervention like that which occurred in the Vietnam War (which had proved disastrous for the morale and fighting integrity of the U.S. military) by proposing that the nation should only go to war in matters of "vital national interest", "as a last resort", and, as updated by Weinberger's disciple Colin Powell, with "overwhelming force". The process of setting military budgets forms another contentious intersection of military and non-military policy, and regularly draws active lobbying by rival military services for a share of the national budget.
Nuclear weapons in the U.S. are owned by the civilian United States Department of Energy, not by the Department of Defense.
During the 1990s and 2000s, public controversy over LGBT policy in the U.S. military led to many military leaders and personnel being asked for their opinions on the matter and being given extraordinary deference although the decision was ultimately not theirs to make.
During his tenure, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld raised the ire of the military by attempting to reform its structure away from traditional infantry and toward a lighter, faster, more technologically driven force. In April 2006, Rumsfeld was severely criticized by some retired military officers for his handling of the Iraq war, while other retired military officers came out in support of Rumsfeld. Although no active military officers have spoken out against Rumsfeld, the actions of these officers is still highly unusual. Some news accounts have attributed the actions of these generals to the Vietnam war experience, in which officers did not speak out against the administration's handling of military action. Later in the year, immediately after the November elections in which the Democrats gained control of the Congress, Rumsfeld resigned
Now, if there are ANY US 99% WE THE PEOPLE thinking that global banking 1% privatizing all that is public military to NDAA controlled by OLD WORLD KNIGHTS OF MALTA are having their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS protected-----we can assume that means KNIGHTS OF MALTA CONSTITUTION which has the CASTE SYSTEM of who gets to own property/have due process rights.
We are assuming the article shared yesterday about the GLOBAL MITRE CORPORATION fight between PRIORY and INTERNATIONAL BISHOP'S HATS is to what this article title refers---not our US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
The term STANDING ARMY in our US Constitution and Federal laws do not meet the literal term of DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID. So, an AMAZON.COM global mercenary DRONE BEEHIVE in Greater Baltimore is not considered a STANDING ARMY because first, they are not HUMAN and second they are tied to AIR FORCE/NAVY NASA SPACE. Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE must be careful how these TALKING POINTS are used----STANDING ARMY------global military technology forces -----you say TOMATO we say TOMATOE.
THE MERCENARY GAP:
HOW TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CONTRACTORS IN
THE AGE OF THE PRIVATE MILITARY
JOHN J. S VIOKLA II
Donald Vance, a private military firm employee,
day mercenary, sat at a coffee shop in Chicago’s loop knowing that
he was going to put his life in peril by informing the FBI about his
boss in Iraq.
This was nothing new to Vance, a Navy veteran, he
had served his country his entire life.
The implicit promise had
always been that when he was done taking care of his nation, his
nation would tend to him. Vance probably did not imagine that
because of his actions that day, he and his coworker and friend,
Below we see just this discussion. This article as all FAKE NEWS academic and media keep PRETENDING EISENHOWER warned us about this expanding military complex when EISENHOWER AVIATION ACT opened the door to global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA to create this massive global private praetorian military corporation.
As well----this article calls DEEP STATE---a US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX when all that is ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY/ENERGY GRID is not a sovereign US structure---it is WORLD BANK/IMF/UNITED NATIONS.
The DEEP STATE - The US Military Industrial Complex Redefined
fugetaboutit (60) in history • last year
The transformation of the United States from a quasi–social democracy to a political oligarchy maintaining the outward form, but not the spirit, of constitutional government. The governing structure has evolved that made possible both the rapacity of Wall Street and the culture of permanent war and constant surveillance. As the political scientist Harold Lasswell observed more than half a century ago, a society’s leadership class consists of people whose “private motives are displaced onto public objects and rationalized in terms of public interest.”
As Mike Lofgren correctly stated, The Deep State is a wasteful and incompetent method of governance. But it persists because its perverse incentive structure frequently rewards failure and dresses it up as success. Its pervasive, largely commonplace corruption and creation of synthetic bogeymen and foreign scapegoats anesthetize the public into a state of mind variously composed of apathy, cynicism, and fear--the very antithesis of responsible citizenship.
As such, historical events shaped the emergence and predominance of the Deep State which today, reflects and contributes to all foreign and domestic policies and decisions. This would become an ever pervasive element of US culture. As a result, the concept of a permanent, peacetime national security apparatus became gradually institutionalized with the National Security Act of 1947, which established the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the president’s National Security Council. NSC-68, a 1950 White House policy document, sketched out a grand strategy for containing communism by means of a permanent peacetime military buildup. This was also reiterated in Sherman Kent's works which acknowledged Strategic Intelligence to be all encompassing and include all elements of human collective existence.
These policy measures represented the congealing of an idea unprecedented in American history: that the United States should, and would, maintain a large, capable military and a comprehensive intelligence establishment regardless of whether it was in a formal state of war. President Eisenhower already recognized the danger of the permanent war mentality, and in his January 1961 farewell address he presciently warned about the “disastrous rise of misplaced power” of a new “military-industrial complex” on American soil. Unfortunately, those words left unheeded by elected officials and the unwashed masses, who still ascribe to partisan politics a leadership which mistakenly has their idiotic interests in mind. This is where we are today. The emergent Russian threat is a testimony to the rise and perpetuation of Eisenhower's warning.
Remember, NATO is a European global organization operated by OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
We have had these few decades only global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS freemasons being our US representative to NATO.
'Malta knighthoods are awarded to many leading individuals who are part of the military and intelligence community. The CIA's Bill Casey, for example, was a Knight of Malta. Former NATO General and later US Secretary of State Alexander Haig is also a Malta Knight.
TRUMP/PENCE being the same global banking 1% 33rd degree freemasons as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS of course support NATO----Trump pretending to be right wing conservative Republican campaigned as hating TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT-----NATO/UNITED NATIONS but has been MOVING FORWARD the installation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE DEEP STATE as hard as OBAMA.
It was OBAMA era that TRANSFORMED global military corporations away from ground troops----and created asymmetric drone warfare----and military technology as DEEP STATE.
NO, NATO is not an American global NGO----global banking 1% simply use all our US Federal tax revenue to support this OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA NGO.
THE JACOBIN is that global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS TRIBE OF JUDAH -----that pretends to be fighting all these global military structures while being a major FUNDER....another FAKE LEFT group. So, JACOBIN is not surprised by TRUMP being team ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.
TRUMP campaigned against TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT so rebranded TPP to NEW NAFTA........he campaigned against UN/NATO while working for them as 33rd degree freemason.
No mystery------NATO is US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global privatized military and security corporations.
The Mysteriously Vanished NATO Critique
Branko Marcetic THE JACOBIN
Reading the avalanche of pro-NATO coverage after Trump's recent criticisms, you might assume there is no case that NATO is an American imperial project we should dismantle. But there is.
Donald Trump speaks besides Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a news conference at the 2018 NATO Summit at NATO headquarters on July 12, 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. Jasper Juinen / Getty
Our new issue hits the printer this week. Subscriptions are $10 off today if you follow this link.
Should criticism of NATO — indeed, questioning its very existence — be taboo? The answer from most media coverage of the just-passed NATO summit and Trump’s meeting with Putin today appears to have been a resounding “yes.” In typical fashion, Trump’s actions over the past week appeared to have moved those opposed to him to swiftly embrace the opposite of whatever his position is — in this case, by rallying around NATO.
Just as Trump’s comment in early 2017 that the alliance was “obsolete” sparked an explosion of fierce, often liberal, denunciations of Trump and defenses of the Cold War-era alliance, so Trump’s veiled threats to leave NATO over the past week or so have driven much of the media to insist on its importance. They’ve done so by citing former diplomats or members of the national security community, and implying or even outright stating that Trump’s skepticism toward NATO is at last the proof that he’s working directly for the Kremlin.
This kind of talk, besides providing further fuel for the fire of Trump-Putin conspiracizing, serves to delineate the boundaries of acceptable debate. In this hurricane of pro-NATO coverage, it’s easy to come away thinking there’s no reasonable case that NATO is obsolete, outdated, part of an American project of maintaining imperial dominance, or that it should be dismantled, or at the very least radically transformed into something other than a military alliance.
Such ideas, which fly in the face of the Washington consensus, are now the province of unserious, boorish ignoramuses (like Trump) or Putin stooges (like Trump).
So goes the narrative anyway. In fact, the notion of NATO as a sacrosanct entity whose existence and mission are beyond debate would probably surprise its many critics over the decades — a list which included George F. Kennan, the intellectual father of “containment,” the US policy of checking the expansion of both communism and the Soviet Union throughout the world.
Kennan viewed containment as a political and economic strategy rather than a military one, and opposed the creation of NATO, the rearmament of Germany, the development of the hydrogen bomb, and other military escalations. Kennan’s views obviously lost out in the Truman administration, and as Soviet ambassador through 1952, he would privately complain that US policymakers “were expecting to gain our objectives without making any concessions whatsoever to the views and interests of our adversaries,” a view he compared to “the policy of unconditional surrender.” As a result, “there remained a certain hard core of genuine belief in the sinisterness of Western intentions” among Russian leaders, he told the state department.
Even on the American imperial architects’ own terms, any Cold War-era justification for NATO’s existence vanished after the Soviet Union collapsed. As two defense secretaries (at the time, one former and one future) argued in 1999, NATO’s “founding purpose of deterring attack from the Warsaw Pact has been fulfilled.” NATO was adrift in this post-Cold War world, and there was open discussion about what the point of it was anymore, particularly when George W. Bush initially sidelined it in his “war on terror,” in keeping with his preference for taking unilateral action.
Not all US officials were confused about its purpose, however. The Clinton administration was the first to aggressively pursue NATO’s expansion in this new world, taking advantage of Russia’s weakened state to entrench US influence further throughout Europe.
Strobe Talbott, a former Time magazine journalist who served as Clinton’s deputy secretary of state, recently explained the thinking to Keith Gessen: “If the leadership of a country has any view but the following, it’s not going to be the leadership of that county for very long. And that is: We do what we can in our own interest.”
It was ultimately the dubious purpose of the “war on terror” that would save NATO from becoming either a peacekeeping force or, as Putin had wanted, a political forum. The first time NATO’s Article 5 (the provision that treated an attack on one NATO ally as an attack on all) was ever invoked wasn’t during the Cold War, but following the September 11 attacks, and NATO eventually became heavily involved in the global “war on terror.”
So it came to be, ironically, that the two interventions NATO has become most associated with in the twenty-first century are both completely unconnected to Russia and far from Europe’s shores. They also happen to be failures.
One was Afghanistan, to which NATO initially deployed a small fighting force in an explicit attempt to avoid a Soviet-style embroilment in the country, before eventually doing just that by sending in a larger number of troops to cover for US soldiers being diverted to Iraq. The presence of large numbers of foreign troops, coupled with the death and destruction visited upon Afghans by military forces over the years, has kept alive the local resentment that insurgents feed off of, and will continue to do so for who knows how much longer.
NATO’s other triumph in this period was the 2011 bombing of Libya, which ended with the killing of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. NATO quickly hailed the intervention as “one of the most successful in NATO history,” a sentiment that stopped being plausible almost as soon as it was uttered, as the country quickly devolved into chaos. As a result of the war, easily Obama’s worst foreign policy decision, Libya became a launching pad for weapons to reach extremists around the Middle East and for the migrant crisis that has helped feed the rise of the European far right, while a thriving slave trade has emerged in the country.
Meanwhile, back in Europe, NATO’s continued existence — and, in fact, its expansion — has mostly served to resuscitate the very issue it was created to solve: Russian aggression. Soviet leaders had long viewed NATO with suspicion, and the fact that it continued to soldier on even after the ostensible basis for its existence had ceased to be only heightened this suspicion.
According to declassified documents, both Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin were repeatedly assured by the first Bush and Clinton administrations, respectively, that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward, something Russians viewed as unacceptable. Imagine, for instance, how US policymakers might feel if the Soviet Union had established a military alliance with a handful of South American states during the Cold War explicitly as a bulwark against the United States, then when peace at last came, began inviting more and more South and Central American countries to the alliance while breaking an explicit promise not to do so.
This is effectively what NATO has done during the 1990s and beyond in Eastern Europe. With sixteen member states by the end of the Cold War (all North American and European), NATO has, between 1999 and now 2018, added fourteen new member states, all from Eastern Europe, including two (Latvia and Estonia) right on the Russian border. Macedonia has officially joined as of last week’s summit.
Not all US officials thought this was smart. Kennan, for instance, warned at the time that eastward expansion of NATO would be a “strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions” and “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Robert Gates, secretary of defense for both Bush and Obama, has said that “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward … aggravated the relationship between the United States and Russia.”
This was compounded, said Gates, by the fact that just a few weeks after adding its first three eastern European member states in 1999, NATO began bombing Belgrade, a conflict that was only prevented from spinning into a wider, more dangerous confrontation because NATO captain James Blunt — yes, that James Blunt — and a British general refused to follow Wesley Clark’s command to take control of a Russian-held airport in Pristina, Kosovo.
Kennan’s warnings about the effect of this expansion were prescient. He warned that it would “inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion” and “impel Russian foreign policy in a direction decidedly not to our liking.” When Yeltsin, leading a weakened Russia, had no choice but to accept NATO expansion at a 1997 summit with Clinton in Helsinki, Russian politicians denounced it as “the largest military threat to our country over the last fifty years” and “a Treaty of Versailles for Russia.”
“There was no reason for this whatsoever,” Kennan told the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman about the expansion. “Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.” As early as 1997, Kennan fretted that it would result in “a new Cold War, probably ending in a hot one, and the end of the effort to achieve a workable democracy in Russia.”
This is a history that is almost entirely left out of most defenses of NATO in the mainstream press, not to mention in accounts of Putin’s aggressive actions. And it’s no mere excuse-making on behalf of the Kremlin. Even Michael McFaul — Obama’s ambassador to Russia between 2012 and 2014, and far from a Putin apologist or dove — acknowledged in a recent debate that Russian policymakers have reacted to “aggressive US policies,” including the Iraq War and US support for “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe, which “intensified conflict and tension in US-Russia relations.” McFaul also argues that the other major ingredient was the 2012 return to power of Putin, a reactive leader paranoid about American intentions in the region who is inclined to view US actions with mistrust.
This is an alarming cocktail, especially as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has warned that the world is closer to nuclear annihilation than it’s ever been thanks partly due to tensions with Russia. And it’s only been made worse by last week’s summit.
While most of the media spent the NATO summit chiding Trump for supposedly undermining NATO at the behest of Putin, the summit produced a marked military escalation implicitly aimed at Russia, and there is evidence that Trump’s haranguing of European leaders actually succeeded in ramping up already provocative NATO military spending.
Yet not only is there an almost total absence of voices in the mainstream media calling for a de-escalation of tensions between the US and Russia, it’s members of the media — liberal ones, very often — who are virtually baying for conflict with Putin, arguing, as George Kennan had warned they would, that Putin’s reactive aggression is simply “how the Russians are.”
With two minutes until midnight on the doomsday clock, and an atmosphere of historically bad mutual mistrust between Russia and Western leadership, the commentariat has nearly unanimously cast suspicion on an entirely routine diplomatic meeting between Trump and his Russian counterpart (and one Trump has taken more than twice as long to undertake than his predecessors) where they are set to discuss reducing their nuclear weapons, before transitioning to calling for its cancellation.
When you ignore Trump’s rhetoric — as commentators correctly tend to do when the subject is domestic policy — his administration has been one of the more aggressive toward Russia in recent memory. That most of the media ignores this is mirrored by their fierce, unanimous defense of NATO, one that entirely leaves out the alliance’s failures and the fact that it’s brought us to this perilous moment.
Turning Back the Clock
At best, NATO is a Cold War relic whose attempts to broaden its mission in the twenty-first century have been disastrous failures. At worst, it’s a vehicle for anti-Russian provocation that both strengthens the hand of reactionary forces in Russia and edges the world closer and closer to armed, potentially nuclear, conflict.
Yes, getting rid of NATO is one of Putin’s most cherished goals. But that fact alone shouldn’t color debate over NATO, any more than it would be a good idea to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine just because Putin wouldn’t like it.
We are in a dangerous moment in history, as the vast majority of media coverage has focused on wild conspiracies about whether or not the US president is Putin’s “asset” instead of on the rapidly escalating tensions between Russia and the West. This escalation should be rolled back. One way to do that involves questioning the continued existence of NATO, as it has played a key role in bringing tensions to their current boiling point. The scope of debate shouldn’t depend on whatever the US president does or says on any given day.
We will end by reminding what difference our US CONSTITUTION vs TREATIES makes in sovereign US public policy. We are told a TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT will over-ride our US Constitution because TREATIES are made US FEDERAL LAW. We are told the UN CHARTER as a TREATY again over-rides our US Constitution becoming US FEDERAL LAW.
Global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are playing games with our US COMMERCE CLAUSE-----and with our US CONSTITUTIONAL laws surrounding what defines US PUBLIC MILITIA FOR OUR CIVIL DEFENSE.
The UN CHARTER some say is the NEW CONSTITUTION rather than KNIGHTS OF MALTA constitution but it is easy to see who ROBBER BARONS are---who those CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 5% freemason/Greek player pols that never go away are and to what organization they PLEDGE.
We suppose a UN CHARTER is deemed superior to our US TITLE OF NOBILITY CLAUSE.....sorry, wrong again.
'The Title of Nobility Clause
is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The Framers' intentions for this clause were twofold: to prevent a society of nobility from being established in the United States'
THE UN CHARTER aims at INTERNATIONAL relations------so, the US as a charter member cannot go to war without UN support. This UN Charter has absolutely no power over how a sovereign nation protects its SOVEREIGN LAND. So, the UN CHARTER cannot force the US to allow its NATO military structure. Well, say global banking 1% US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are not SOVEREIGN -----that is the catch they say. A FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE overseas allows global private military corporations come in as SECURITY AND POLICING so a US zone is required to as well.
THIS IS THE POINT--------CLINTON ERA REWRITING OF FDR ERA US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES WAS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL-----NO US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE CAN EXIST INSIDE US, STATE, AND LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY ERGO, THE UN CHARTER CANNOT IMPOSE GLOBAL MILITARY CORPORATIONS.
The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.
The UN Charter being signed by a delegation at a ceremony held at the Veterans’ War Memorial Building on 26 June 1945.Amendments to Articles 23, 27 and 61 of the Charter were adopted by the General Assembly on 17 December 1963 and came into force on 31 August 1965. A further amendment to Article 61 was adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1971, and came into force on 24 September 1973. An amendment to Article 109, adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1965, came into force on 12 June 1968.
The amendment to Article 23 enlarges the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen. The amended Article 27 provides that decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven) and on all other matters by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven), including the concurring votes of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
The amendment to Article 61, which entered into force on 31 August 1965, enlarged the membership of the Economic and Social Council from eighteen to twenty-seven. The subsequent amendment to that Article, which entered into force on 24 September 1973, further increased the membership of the Council from twenty-seven to fifty-four.
The amendment to Article 109, which relates to the first paragraph of that Article, provides that a General Conference of Member States for the purpose of reviewing the Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members (formerly seven) of the Security Council. Paragraph 3 of Article 109, which deals with the consideration of a possible review conference during the tenth regular session of the General Assembly, has been retained in its original form in its reference to a "vote, of any seven members of the Security Council", the paragraph having been acted upon in 1955 by the General Assembly, at its tenth regular session, and by the Security Council.
Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional subcommittees.
1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they remembers.
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.