Posted by MARTIN on September 16, 1998 at 22:17:20:
In Reply to: Dan Meador's essay deserves to have its own heading here. posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 16, 1998 at 21:36:22:
I disagree on Meader's contention that;
The United "States District Court is a territorial court, and the in rem action is an admiralty/maritime action".
Why would (US citizens) "resident alien enemies"
of the US be brought up before an
admiralty/maritime jurisdiction court?
By E.O. FDR altered one word one word in the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C.A. App., Sec. 1 et, seq.),which made people living in the states enemies of the United States, and subjected them for revenue purposes to licensure in all commercial activities. Instead of this Act (originally passed during WW1) applying to persons doing business with the enemy 'without the United States' it was changed to read to 'within the United States'.(E.O. No. 2040, March 9, 1933 was ratified by Congress)
Present law forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an emergency proclaimed by the President. 12 U.S.C.A, SEC. 95
Because of 12 U.S.C.A., Sec. 95 every President re-afirms the state of national emergency, annually.
I do not believe that a national emergency falls within admiralty/maritime jurisdiction.
Congress has always had the power to define and punish violations of the law of nations. (Article 1, section 8, We the People)
The law of war is a branch of the law of nations so it would seem reasonable to me that some type of military tribunal would be a more correct jurisdiction and a more correct definition of the District Courts.
Post a Followup