Replies

Took a bit of time to find a link to the case!

Brown v. Bernstein, 49 F. Supp. 728 (1943)

The case was brought by a the government, against a person who flouted regulations pertaining to the rationing of meat during WWII.

Prentiss M. Brown, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, has filed in this court his complaint against the above-named defendant, alleging violation of a governmental meat restriction order and praying that the defendant be enjoined and restrained from further violation thereof.

My first impression is that this case has defendant attacking an administrative regulation as being outside the scope of power Congress granted the administrative agency.

The case is worth a read. It discusses balance of powers between Congress and the President, and in particular the power of the president to declare a state of emergency.

I would point out that this case was heard and decided by a civilian court, not a military tribunal. And that even though the civilian court took judicial notice ...

This court takes judicial notice that a state of war exists. [citations omitted] We are at war with the most dangerous military powers on earth. The safety and welfare of our citizens and the success of our armed forces at home and abroad depend upon the proper control of our resources.

against a person who flouted regulations pertaining to the rationing of meat during WWII.

Just a quick sidebar, counsellor.

Flouting meat selling regulations is not the same [Cause] as this;

[Cause]
Define 'Subversion'.
The act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within?

Is this clause from the Executive Order then Un-Constitutional?

"I therefore determine that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

And please render a ruling on the Constitutionality of this piece of the Q post.

"Sec. 12. In accordance with Article 33 of the UCMJ, as amended by section 5204 of the MJA, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, will issue nonbinding guidance regarding factors that commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and judge advocates should take into account when exercising their duties with respect to the disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of justice and discipline under Articles 30 and 34 of the UCMJ.

That guidance will take into account, with appropriate consideration of military requirements, the principles contained in official guidance of the Attorney General to attorneys for the Federal Government with respect to the disposition of Federal criminal cases in accordance with the principle of fair and evenhanded administration of Federal criminal law."

Please take special note when addressing this issue, the legality of the Civilian positions of Homeland Security and Attorney General with regards to guidance and their working with the Department of Defense.

Perhaps a hybrid system of joint jurisdiction between civilian and military courts? When sedition and the previously outlined criteria are met and it's "determine(d) that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

I do have a strong feeling, C, that Q wouldn't be pointing us to all this if he (and Trump) thought as you do, that military tribunals for U.S. citizens are so easily dismissed as you are attempting to do.

Perhaps they expect the Supreme Court to make a ruling?

Bagster