Image 01 Image 03

No martial law

No martial law

I’ve received a number of e-mails and comments about an Executive Order signed by Obama on Friday, titled National Defenses Resources Preparedness, and what it means.

It appears that this Executive Order is an update of prior Executive Orders signed in 1988 and 1994 which elaborate similar powers in time of war or national emergency.  The 1994 Order in particular was not limited to national emergency:

The United States must have an industrial and technology base capable of meeting national defense requirements, and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.

Now I’ve not redlined the various versions, and if someone wants to make the argument that this is an expansion of presidential powers, then do so based on actual language.

There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny.

I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems, but unless and until someone does more than merely state that martial law is coming, I’ll consider this to be routine.

Update:  Ed Morrissey has more history of such Orders and reaches a similar conclusion.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The larger point being, I think, that the Federal government has ALREADY grossly over-stepped its bounds, and we have very little appreciation for just how much.

Nor is this a new problem. Lincoln was no great friend of the Constitution (whatever else his qualities), and Wilson was downright hostile to it. Unless you’ve studied the Progressive Era, you would have trouble believing where we have been as a nation…and could be going beyond in the near future.

    Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 18, 2012 at 11:16 am


    I’ll reserve judgement, but am inclined to part with the Professor as far as “nothing to see here”.

    One needs to look no further how quickly and efficiently Central and South American constitutional democracies transformed into marxist dictatorships, all within “the rule of law”.

    A roll of duct tape and bailing wire sitting in a junk drawer doesn’t add up to much-

    But, put in the right hands…..


    StrangernFiction in reply to Ragspierre. | March 18, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    The larger point being, I think, that the Federal government has ALREADY grossly over-stepped its bounds, and we have very little appreciation for just how much.

    And I would argue we have even less appreciation for the amount of freedom that has been taken away by state and local governments. Having worked in a regulatory department at the local level (worst time of my life, but the most educational experience I’ve ever had), I can tell you that it isn’t pretty. The Left’s hold on this country is much greater than most know.

      Hope Change in reply to StrangernFiction. | March 18, 2012 at 10:54 pm

      Amen, StrangernFiction. Well said. This speech could have been written about today.

      Ronald Reagan – 1964, “A Time For Choosing” excerpt – full transcript at the link below

      “[ … ] Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

      And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

      This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

      You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
      [ … ]
      I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

      No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

      Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

      Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards.

      How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
      [ … ]
      Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

      But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England. […] [end excerpt]

      The difference is, we can follow the Reagan example if we choose to.
      Read the whole thing.

    This move has “straits of Hormuz” all over it.
    IDB had a piece late last week that the Navy now has everything in place to keep the straits of Hormuz open if some “event” would cause it to be blocked, etc. The EO has all the fingerprints of whatever would be necessary on the domestic front if that comes to pass.

An interesting little juxtaposition, reminding us that tyranny can be very local. Guess who the party was…???

Good to read Prof..and one reason I asked about the deal. The last thing Republican’s need is to waste time and media time chasing bait.

The executive order does not authorize martial law, but it does seem to activate wartime central planning authority during non-emergency conditions. Another reader pointed to the addition of the words “non-emergency” in this section of the order as an amendment to the earlier versions:
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.

Thank you Professor, I feel better now.

    shar in reply to Moe4. | March 18, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Now that we’ve been gently patted on the head, it’s all fine, nothing to see here, we’ll just go away.


      Moe4 in reply to shar. | March 18, 2012 at 8:25 pm

      This morning I had no idea of the history involing this law, and was glad to hear it. If you for one second think I trust this administration you are sadly mistaken. My eyes are wide open and you have insulted me,shame on yoou.

[…] William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection and Ed Morrissey of Hot Air have reviewed the EO. Both are highly respected bloggers, not prone to […]

[…] demands analysis for which I lack time at the moment — and yes, I know that Hot Air and Legal Insurrection have opined that it’s merely an […]

As usual, read for a couple hours on this, overcame Google bias to determine its kinda creepy but no big deal.

Here’s some supplementary info:
Under Title I of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061et seq.), the President is authorized to require preferential acceptance and performance of contracts or orders supporting certain approved national defense and energy programs, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities in such a manner as to promote these approved programs. Additional priorities authority is found in section 18 of the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468), 10 U.S.C. 2538, and 50 U.S.C. 82. DPAS authority has also been extended to support emergency preparedness activities under Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 5915et seq.).

Originally published in 1984, the DPAS regulations were revised on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 31918), to update, streamline, and clarify a number of provisions. The purpose of the DPAS is to assure the timely availability of industrial resources to meet current national defense and emergency preparedness program requirements, including critical infrastructure protection and restoration, as well as provide an operating system to support rapid industrial response in a national emergency. In pursuit of the DPAS mission, the Department of Commerce endeavors to minimize disruptions to the normal commercial activities of industry.

All Executive Orders and rules must comply with and not violate:
Executive Order 13132 – Federalism

    Yeah. About that….

    NEVER, under ANY circumstances, accept a “Red Line” contract if you’re in a manufacturing business. They’re considered covered under the prior versions of this EO, and I assume (although I haven’t read) this one.

    If you fail to meet the requirements of a Red Line (aka National Security Interest) contract, the military occupies your facility and stops you from doing ANYTHING else until you fulfill their contract. Workers not on that project aren’t allowed in. They don’t care that it might not be your fault, nor do they care that they may be destroying your business. All they care about is that their product gets produced, and anything that might be an impediment is stopped.

    It gets really ugly, REALLY fast.

It’s a Friday signing, I never trust anything from the government that comes out on a Friday, especially from this administration.

Maybe someone can answer this fundamental question:

Why now?

    OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | March 18, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    One could only guess….

    What you got?

    WTis02575 in reply to Browndog. | March 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    I recall that during 2008 election Obama argued vigorously for a domestic security force as well funded as the Pentagon – and reporting to the Executive. Isn’t this what is in mind?
    As to why now – I imagine he’s just working down the check list of things he’d like to have in play as options for 2nd term and difficult for someone else to undo. Along with the subversion of the DoJ, EPA, HHS, Interior, State with quite radical administrators and overall weakening of the Pentagon through budget reductions. Think of the outcry when a R president wants to fire the WHOLE DoJ in 2013.

      Hope Change in reply to WTis02575. | March 18, 2012 at 11:02 pm

      WTis02575 — just FYI –Newt will undo them.

      Newt already has a plan the larger elements of which are place and which is being refined by his team in order for it to be absolutely clear this summer and fall to everyone exactly HOW we’re going to undo them.

      Which is another reason I support NEwt and no other candidate. Because Newt is the man with the plan.

      Hope Change in reply to WTis02575. | March 18, 2012 at 11:10 pm

      And WTis02575 — p.s. yes, I recall in 2008 Obama’s call for a civilian paramilitary organization as armed as the military and reporting to him. FOR WHAT? Gosh, oh, gosh, what other kinds of national leaders have wanted that kind of organization?

      The socialist machinations are utterly visible if you watch the lines of distortion of our governmental structure and ignore the noise about things like contraception.

      Newt is the only one strong & tough enough to stand up to the Leftist outcry; and experienced, savvy and CLEVER enough to find an effective way REALLY to dismantle this socialist attempt to destroy our country’s freedoms.

I agree that the cause for concern here is the “non-emergency” language of the EO. Add that to Obama’s total disregard of the Constitution and the impotent response to this by Congress (including most Repubs) and you have a potential recipe for a huge power grab. “Take smaller steps and the actions can be explained/dismissed or go unnoticed” has been the MO by leftists for a while, although the tactic has been ramped up by Obama & Co. Whether this is “meh” or not, I’m buying more ammo.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGal. | March 18, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    More ammo is good. Can’t go wrong with more ammo.

      Mike the Knife in reply to Ragspierre. | March 18, 2012 at 8:48 pm

      More ammo? That must be why the administration just confirmed an order for 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition. Got that from Market Watch, Wall Street Journal 3/12/12. The stock went up. Company is ATK in Anoka, Minnesota. I am expecting an emergency to come up.

Shouldn’t this conversation account for Obama’s disregard for existing basic constraints on executive power, such as his flouting of the War Powers Act and his unconcealed intention to “go around Congress”, within the context of his own necessity?

I predicted two years ago that Obama would shut down large swaths of the internet in the run-up to the 2012 election on the basis of a national cyber-security threat. I still predict this. The reason is simple: he will feel he must do this to win. This is the final and only way to understand Obama — necessity. If you look at him in this sense, i.e., understand what he wants, you will never fail to predict him.

    Ragspierre in reply to raven. | March 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    I have a different take, raven. Such a move would push Barackah out of Alinsky mode. It would be too overt, and way too provocative.

    Remember, Obama constantly contradicts himself. Even within a single paragraph, he will say two contradictory things. He will offer head-fakes and feints. This is all Alinsky style Collectivism, not early Ayers Collectivism. He knows to remain JUST inside the line as he implements his “transformation”.

      raven in reply to Ragspierre. | March 18, 2012 at 12:47 pm

      I hear what you’re saying, and this is the key point or question: when does the veil completely drop?

      Let’s not forget that Alinsky, despite all his Talmudic injunctions to wage a more covert and insinuating war than radicals of the past, was ultimately an “ends justifies the means” revolutionary. All leftists are, finally. We’re discussing here what may simply be necessary. Disarming and even throwing into chaos the entire web-based conservative movement may finally be what is necessary.

      But hasn’t the veil already dropped? Let’s also not forget that Obama has already taken a number of audaciously unprecedented actions which, in a “normal” or reasonably objective media environment would have been understood as baldly subversive and outrageously unacceptable to American tradition (appointing a communist as green energy czar, attacking the First Amendment’s religious freedoms of conscience, and even the entirety of Obamacare). The list is endless. None of these actions were interpreted by the MSM as what they actually were. Obama no doubt feels as if this firewall of apologists and liars would protect him once again.

      In any case, I feel the debate becomes moot at the point at which necessity prevails. Obama is a leftist, and in the final analysis leftists do what they must do, take the risks they must take, in the name of power.

        Ragspierre in reply to raven. | March 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm

        “None of these actions were interpreted by the MSM as what they actually were.”

        Oh, we agree. And the list of dictatorial acts, as you note, is much longer. But that sort of reinforces my point, doesn’t it? Barackah DOES have his MSM firewall intact, and he would feel no need to risk a move against the internet. Hence, no necessity.

          raven in reply to Ragspierre. | March 18, 2012 at 1:28 pm

          His firewall is only relatively intact; it is less and less so thanks to the new media. The new media depends on the internet; it would instantaneously cease to exist without it. Obama will do what he needs to do.

        StrangernFiction in reply to raven. | March 18, 2012 at 3:02 pm

        The likely GOP nominee believes the ends justify the means as well.

          Hope Change in reply to StrangernFiction. | March 18, 2012 at 11:23 pm

          StrangernFiction, remember not to drink the Kool-Aid.

          “Likely” only in the sense that they SAY that repeatedly, trying to hypnotize everyone to believe that the race is over, the race is over, the race is over … and Lola always gets what she wants.

 “Whatever Lola Wants”

          StangernFiction, let us remember the word “putative.” The “putative likely nominee.”

          For myself, I reject the putative likely nominee and all his alleged resume.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Eternal vigilance does not mean blasting every sound and flicker with our entire arsenal.

Especially since we know full well the Democrats are trying to distract from the economy.

StrangernFiction | March 18, 2012 at 12:15 pm

If they can (ie enough of the military can be made to go along), the will, and it will all be “perfectly legal.”

My concern with this is that it could be coupled with the recent power to give the President the ability to arrest, detain, and imprison someone without access to the courts simply by declaring that person a terrorist. Then, too, we have the announced, but undefined, policy of the President being allowed to kill US citizens. The “due process” function is undefined. Finally, Posse Comitatus is merely Federal law and can be overridden by Congress.

When we put together all these powers together, we have to wonder why this executive order needed to be rewritten now. There is an arrogance and viciousness to Obama that I have never seen in any previous President. We would well to always question his motives.

    Quote from earlier today:

    (Browndog | March 18, 2012 at 11:16 am)

    A roll of duct tape and bailing wire sitting in a junk drawer doesn’t add up to much-

    But, put in the right hands…..


      OcTEApi in reply to Joy. | March 18, 2012 at 1:17 pm

      After all of Obama’s other constitutional transgressions if this… not the 2841 pages of Obamacare regulations
      The coming investigation into Obamacare

      THIS finally makes Browndogs ears stand up then he’s just not paying attention.

      Dems want Fannie, Freddie overseer out over resistance to mortgage write-downs
      By Judson Berger
      Published March 16, 2012

      Bonus Q: Given Newt’s relationship with Fannie Freddie, where’s he stand on this $25-$100B Re-Fi taxpayer shakedown.

        Hope Change in reply to OcTEApi. | March 18, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        OcTEApi — As even fairly cursory research will tell you, Newt’s “relationship” was that his company, not just Newt himself, was retained to advise them; that he advised Congress NOT to fund them; that he told them that their way of “helping” people to home ownership was a disaster waiting to happen.

        Newt has worked with Habitat for Humanity and he thinks their model, of helping people to develop the skills necessary for home ownership, is the workable model.

        Newt is not perfect. Newt is not omniscient. Newt is fallible. Legitimate criticism is always valid and, where warranted, important. Sly innuendo is not.

What a wonderful feeling to be able to come to you for a rational voice of reason when so many out there, esp in #twitterworld are taking the bait….Far too many other fish to fry & vetting to be done!

Its fine to at least raise our eyebrows when we read this sort of thing but Im glad we can come here and a very few other places and get a reasonable “take” on an issue. I dont know about you folks but more and more I find the Prof’s place here one of the very best for reasonable and timely responses. What we all need…particularly heading into electionland is rational responses when needed so we dont find ourselves on the losing end in media (as best were able). Im sure lots of us read the blurb at Memorandum and thought..Oy Gevalt…what now.
Its what separates good blogs/sites from over reacting/paranoia peddlers that poison issues we might otherwise win without spin.
Thanks Prof J!

This EO completely revokes EO 12919 as well as sections 401(3)and (4) of EO 12656 so a redlined comparison is necessary to discuss the full impact and certainly before any adoption of “nothing to see here folks” even if ultimately true. Removal of 401 (3) and (4) would seem to weaken national security as the Dept of Commerce will no longer analyze potential effects of national security emergencies on actual production capability, develop preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national security emergencies, or perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the commercial industrial base to support the national defense. This may have been reassigned but I have not seen it. The language of 19219 is similar but not a restatement. Thus interpretation may or may not be significant. Sec. 102 adds “national” to “defense equipment. Again, it also appears to weaken or make ambiguous and subject to interpretation the prior EO by changing the purpose from ensuring the base is capable of responding to “all threats to the national security of the United States” to “the national defense needs of the United States.” I perceive the change from “all threats” to “needs” to be significant. Sec 103 changes “federal departments and agencies” to “executive departments and agencies.” This “may” be a power grab to executive. 103(a) changes full spectrum of “national security emergencies” to just “emergencies” and also adds “essential” to civilian and military command while it previously only used “essential” to civilian command and left out the modifier for military and “industrial” which the latter has been completely removed. 103(b) changes “adequate” to “most critical” in reference to resources. 103(c) removes “industrial” from resources. 103(d) adds “support” to national defense requirements. 201(a)(1) adds “livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources”. 202(a)adds “military use of civilian transportation.” Former 308 concerning identification of shortfalls and limitation to times of national emergencies or specified Presidential procedure has been removed. 311 adds “restore.” 801(b) adds “solar, wind, and other types of renewable energy” to definition of energy.

These are but a few of the changes. That some are more subtle than others does not mean that they are meaningless or that there is nothing to see here without more scrupulous analysis. It may all be innocuous but given lessons from actions taken on Health Care, verification is key.

    OcTEApi in reply to Tyrone. | March 18, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Well researched, we already know Obama has RadCzar Love.

    scrupulous analysis of “all threats” to “needs”, who could asses that broad term?

    I thought it was unscrupulous when “veterinary services” fell under taxpayer funded Obamacare during a proclaimed Federal Disaster…
    That was before we were introduced to Feral Fluke.

      Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | March 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm


      Second, veterinary services are actually REALLY important in a TRUE national emergency.

      Vets in the military assure the wholesomeness of locally acquired rations, for one thing.

      In a biological emergency, they would provide A LOT of medical expertise if it crossed into the animal population, as it would with anthrax.

        OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | March 18, 2012 at 5:44 pm

        The USA is currently under TEN Federally declared National Emergencies so your red herring argument that taxpayer funded veterinary services for peoples pets (under Obamacare) are “REALLY important in a TRUE national emergency” falls woefully short.

        I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
        Thus if I ever owned a pet that I suspected had contracted anthrax or required any veterinary services in a time of national emergency, you can be sure I’d respect your individual rights, freedom and liberty as not be required to fund them, humanely dispatching the critter with extreme prejudice.

    sparker in reply to Tyrone. | March 22, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Thank you so very much for red lining the EO and focusing on important
    changes. As you know, people do not revisit and revise currently operative planning orders to no purpose. They revise them
    to make changes that are significant to the operation of the Order. In this case the changes radically expand the conditions under which the Order
    can be implemented. Previously, as you note, the trigger for the implementation of the Order was a “national emergency”, which somwhat circumscribed the implementation conditions. Expanding the trigger to include “non-emegencies”, establishes a carte blanche. Under prior Presidents, the Order, while uncomfortably vague, was reasonably benign, given the constitutional and democratic propensities of the incumbants.
    Obama’s propensities are unconstitutional, anti-democratic,
    and radically destructive. And these latest revisions are entirely consistent with Obama’s economic and social policies. I believe that Obama is cunning, dangerous, and represents an extreme danger to our nation’s well being. I wish our widely
    read bloggers, commentators and analysts were far more sensitive to the implications of this latest maneuver.

Thank you Professor for your words of wisdom….BUT I still have to say it.

Can you say October surprise?

[…] No martial law I’ve received a number of e-mails and comments about an Executive Order signed by Obama on Friday, titled National Defenses Resources Preparedness, and what it means. […]

This guy doesn’t do anything in a vacuum. And they are thinking, and planning 5 moves ahead of us. If it looks innocuous, it isn’t. By the time we realize what it does mean, it will be too late. IMO.

EVERY move is calculated. Just look at Stephanopolous. What meeting did he attend, and what was discussed and planned that led to his dropping the meme into a national debate? Who was in that meeting? When did it occur? How many more meetings like that are going on? And how does this latest action fit into that?

    Hope Change in reply to Rose. | March 18, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    Rose — it’s not that they’re ahead of us. It’s that the people who are supposed “our” guys are in it, too. If every Republican in Washington were willing to stand up for our liberties, we’d be ok. They’re not. They’re complicit. They fold.

    That’s why the TEA Party energy is so important.

Yes, yes, this is all recycled bits from before except the portion with Ace of Spades notes:

    I notice Gabriel Malor has an updated take on the issue. Like Anrew Breitbart, I find myself more enlightened/entertained by the commenters. It seems that many have similar concerns to several commenters here about the person behind this and his history of abusing the Executive Office. Keeping sunlight on what Obama is doing is not “hysterics” but wise.

[…] Gabriel Malor and William Jacobson, have all done a very good job of looking at some of the supposedly controversial provisions of the […]

[…] Update: Read more on the March 2012 Executive Order at Hot Air: Power Grab or Mere Update? and at Legal Insurrection: No Martial Law. […]

[…] Demonaical? Not Really…. Posted on March 18, 2012 11:30 am by Bill Quick » No martial law – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion […]

[…] A. Jacobson  at Legal Insurrection as this to say: We’ve received a number of e-mails and comments about an Executive Order signed […]

[…] since 2008.The MUST READ Blog postings on this are found at, Ace of Spades HQ and Legal Insurrection.So, everyone chill out. Like Eugene Volokh said in his posting about this subject; if there was a […]

One more quick comment: How can an executive order give Obama powers neither the Constitution nor Congress has given him. For example, I believe the legislation allowing Carter to allocate gasoline has expired. Therefore, no executive order can give Obama power he does not already have.

    Hope Change in reply to RickCaird. | March 18, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    Of course you’re right, RickCaird. But it’s the other branches, in the BALANCE OF POWER, that are supposed to keep the president in check. And public opinion,s aroused by the free flow of information from the media.

    But, as we discuss often, the MSM is captured by the Leftist glamour, the ideology of perfection, and they are not reporting. They are not vigilant.

    The Legislative branches are not doing their job, either. Congress should be holding hearings and passing legislation saying Obama is exceeding his powers. They should be withholding money until Obama stays within the limits of the Constitution. That should have started early in the presidency.

    The only ones who I think WOULD rein Obama in are the Constitutional TEA Party congressional reps and they don’t seem to have sufficient number to do it.

    OF COURSE Obama is exceeding his powers. That’s the whole trouble.

    But who will stop him when the other repositories of AUTHORITY wimp out?

    (The answer is, the American People will stop him with this election.If we choose to. If it’s not too late. If we are very, very smart, hard-working and wise.)

I am not in line with the Martial Law hysteria, but it does seem to be little more that a support system blueprint for just that, considering the addition of ‘during peacetime’ language.

While I’m at it, can anyone think of any good reason that Amendment II has been foreshortened by the administration?

    janitor in reply to RosalindJ. | March 18, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    The “peacetime” language, not merely emergency preparedness or when under threat bothered me:

    … assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national

    What “requirements in peacetime” is this referring to?

      janitor in reply to janitor. | March 18, 2012 at 10:51 pm

      Just to clarify. The peacetime language was in the ’94 doc, but I’m unclear how it interacts with the new changes. Why now, what was wrong with the prior order. Feature creep…

[…] William A. Jacobson @ Legal Insurrection: No martial law Eviction 2012, General News ADD COMMENTS You can leave a response, or trackback from your […]

WriterDudeLA | March 18, 2012 at 4:32 pm

While the slight change in wording may seem innocuous, the Obama Administration has frequently used single words to justify the usurpation of power. In the updating of this EO, they have inserted “improve.” In order to improve anything, you must have control over the program or industry needing improvement. I submit that the Obama Administration will attempt to use the word “improve” to usurp the private property rights of companies that they deem important to the national security interests of the US.

Martial law is coming.

Looking backwards is better than having your head up your *ss

[…] No martial law ( […]

[…] A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who also is a law professor at Cornell, agrees. There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to […]

distantdrummer | March 19, 2012 at 1:48 pm

In the absence of “accountability” of those in government, abuse of power and tyranny can exist.

There are several troubling issues in respect of Obaba’s NDRP Executive Order. The language of this latest EO remains
as uncomfortably vague as earlier versions and particularly
so in respect of PART III, Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply, Sec. 308 (a) and (b) and Sec. 311, Strengthening
Domestic Capability, both of which, I suggest, provide legal
support for extrajudicial “taking.”

The EO now provides for an extensive delegation of authority
by Cabinet members to others who were never consented to by the Senate. The delegation of authority is always a tranfer of
power. In this case, the transfer is from the President to the Cabinet member to individuals who have not necessarily taken the requisite oath and who are beyond congressional reach and authority.

The danger posed by EOs like this one lie in the propensities of incumbent
and future presidents. Neither Clinton nor Bush (both of whom sought to defend and enlarge the prerogatives of the executive branch) were never, despite arguments to the contrary, a danger to the well being of the nation. Obama is. His propensities are unconstitutional, anti-democratic and destructively radical. Obama’s EO is yet another thing to worry about.

About that E.O. (Ann Barnhardt’s opinion)

[…] William Jacobson, associate clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and blogger for the Legal Insurrection blog.“I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems, but unless and until […]

Don’t Miss This: KrisAnne Hall Reviews the National Defense Authorization Act


[…] not so much. Here’s a more realistic view at Legal Insurrection. Put simply, WorldNutDaily is full of it. Spend too much time hanging out […]

[…] In the Fox piece, Fox tries to drum up a controversy over the President’s alleged new powers to conscript you and your livestock in an emergency. Or something. Here are the bits where they talk to lawyers: “There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny,” wrote William Jacobson, associate clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and blogger for the Legal Insurrection blog. […]

This is just one more sign that martial law is coming to the USA and our Constitutional freedoms are being destroyed before our eyes in the name of “national security” or “disaster preparedness”. Yea, this executive order is relatively minor, but it’s part of a bigger picture… Militarization of police, FEMA camps, NDAA, PATRIOT act, all add up to point to the USA turning into a dictatorship. There’s an article that pieces it all together pretty well at Take a look sometime; pretty scary stuff!