FDR and Emergency War Powers (Explained)

If you do not wish to read all of this here right now, you may download this entire post as well as the Senate Report 93-549 in one step here:
Law - Emergency War Powers (Explained)

BEGIN:

We are going to begin with a series of documents which are representative of the documents contained in this Report. We will be quoting from, in many cases, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.

The first exhibit is taken from a book written by Carl Brent Swisher -- American Constitutional Development, A complete constitutional history, from the British colonies to the Truman era. Let's read the first paragraph. It says,

"We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established," said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice) in 1920, "whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged."​

How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we'd have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn't we? Justice Hughes goes on to say,

"The conflict known as the World War had ended as far as military hostilities were concerned, but was not yet officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many of the emergency organizations were still in operation."​

What is this man talking about when he speaks of "war statutes in effect and emergency organizations still in operation"?
In 1933, Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states,

​

Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say,

What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution.

The CAUSE and EFFECT of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report.

In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973), (Exhibit 2), the first sentence reads,

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the united States has been in a state of declared national emergency."​

Let's go back to Exhibit 1 just before this. What did that say? It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 2. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.
Referring to the middle of this exhibit:

This situation has continued uninterrupted since the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719
In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 2):

"A majority of the people of the united States have lived all their lives under emergency rule."​

Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on to say:

The introduction continues:

How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that something which could suspend our Constitution would not be taught in school? Amazing, isn't it?
Where does this (Exhibit 2) come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the united States of America, we find the following:

Habeas Corpus - the Great Writ of Liberty (Latin: ..."you have the body."). This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.
In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (Exhibit 3), it says:

We reserved the charging power for ourselves, didn't we? We didn't give that power to the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless to charge one of the citizens or one of the peoples of the united States with a crime unless We, the People, through our grand jury, orders it to do so through an indictment or a presentment. And if We, the People, don't order it, the government cannot do it. If it tried to do it, we would simply follow the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and they would have to release us, wouldn't they? They could not hold us.

But let us recall that, in Exhibit 3, it says:

"except in Cases arising in the Land or Naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual Service in Time of War or public Danger;..."​

We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.
Also from Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 2), and remember that our congressmen wrote these reports and these documents and they're talking about these emergency powers and they say:

Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be resolved.
But once it was done, the Constitution, was to be returned to its peacetime position of authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution could be suspended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it's called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called Article 48. In the United States, it is called the War Powers.

If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal code known as the USC or "United States Code", and find that statute, that law, in existence. If we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC Section 95b (Exhibit 4), we will find a law which states:

Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, (48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719), or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 2, let us remember that, according to the Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95b is current law. This is the law that exists over these united States right this moment.
If that be the case, let us see if we can understand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history. What happened on March the 4th of 1933?

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address (Exhibit 5), which was given at a time when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we read:

​

​

On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural, President Roosevelt was saying that he was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act. Let's see if he got it.

On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038 (Exhibit 6). He called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.

In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 6), it states:

What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the enabling portion of the Act as "imperatively necessary speedily"? The rule of necessity is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the concept of self-defense. The law says, "Thou shalt not kill". But also know that, if you are in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-defense. You have the right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of necessity.

Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to do that which would normally be against the law. So it is reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is something which will probably be against the law. It will probably be against the Constitution of the United States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.
In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 6), it further states in Title 1, Section 1:

Where have we read those words before?

This is the exact same wording as is found (Exhibit 5) today in Title 12, USC 95b. The language in Title 12, USC 95b is exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1. The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are still under the Rule of Necessity. We are still in a declared state of national emergency, a state of emergency that has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty years.

As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was the authority which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917 (Exhibit 8), we see that at the top right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:

"An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.​

By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War I; at that point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies of the United States, or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the continental borders of our nation in a time of war.

Therefore, Congress passed this Act which identified who could be declared enemies of the United States, and, in this Act, we gave the government total authority over those enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, however, in Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the page:

"...other than citizens of the united States."
​

The Act specifically excluded citizens of the united States, because we realized in 1917 that the citizens of the united States were not enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this Act.

Section 5b of the same Act (Exhibit 8), states:

Again, we see here that citizens, and the transactions of citizens made wholly within the United States, were specifically excluded from the war powers of this Act. We, the People, were not enemies of our country; therefore, the government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our enemies.

It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the United States in October, 1917, were not called enemies. Consequently the government, under the war powers of this Act, did not have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of the united States will become crucial later on. Please note the distinction between "United States, and that of "united States"...

In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 8), ​

So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let's see how it reads after it's amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis is ours):

​

What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the united States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the united States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with "by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the (President of the United States) through the authority given to him by the Trading with the enemy Act.(NOTE: change of title now! Exactly whom does the President represent in this situation now??)

To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading with the enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders. That Act also defined the term "enemy" and excluded from that definition citizens of the united States.

In Section 5 (b) of this Act, we see that the President was given unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the united States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority, the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the united States, because we were certainly not enemies.

Citizens of the united States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with "by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

The people of the united States were now subject to the power of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business transactions, We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.

It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President..". So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of "national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States. When either of these two situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 8)

What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It's purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.

Now let's find out about the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision (Exhibit 9), Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:

Remember your Constitution?
"Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies." ALL RULES.

If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" (Exhibit 11), remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:

"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse."​

This is the case of The Rapid (1814).

Additionally,

"No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."
​

In other words, they have no personal rights at law in court. This is the case of The Julia (1813).

In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 12), we read the words:

Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:

Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 12):

From the case (Exhibit 13) of The William Bagaley (1866):

From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 14), in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read:

It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all "intercourse" is illegal.

So, once we were declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. We are certainly required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to work, and a Driver's License, which gives the government the ability to restrict travel; all business in which we engage ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?

Returning once again to the Memorandum of Law: (Exhibit 13)

This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary take-over of enemy property. The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be returned -- mustn't it?
The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent right of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, "I'm seizing your ship." Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.

Reading from (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold" written in 1933:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called, "ownership" is only by virtue of government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."​

Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:

"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation...."​

That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further, Sen. Doc #43 (emphasis is ours),

"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner...."
​

This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the potential power of the government.

Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those powers conferred to him.

On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 15) which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:

"Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency...."​

In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We, the People, would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had deposited.
Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say, "People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency."
How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 15):

"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that, in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6..."​

In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen during that period of time?
Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution (Exhibit 15), we find a proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows:

Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that "the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, *​

Now, in any nominal usage of the American language, the standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows also must be quoted exactly, doesn't it? If it's not, that's a fraudulent use of the American language. At that point marked by the red asterisk (*) above, " began, what did the original Act of October 6,1917 say?
Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917 says:

"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the united States)."​

This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government from taking control of We, the People's money and transactions, didn't it?

However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9,1933 (Exhibit 17):

"by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
​

Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can see the full significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion of domestic transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and "any person" became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the Act. Further, we can now see that the usage of the original text where the red asterisk is (above), it was, in all likelihood, meant to be deliberately misleading, if not fraudulent in nature.

Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board's proposal, we find that anyone violating any provision of this Act will be fined not more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself, initially; no, they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, a banking institution.

Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of the united States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed the actions were "neither justified nor necessary" (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088). Let us see what happened; remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the united States. On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9, 1933, as can be seen in Exhibit 17:

On the next day, March 6 ,1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which has been included in this report, starting at the bottom of Exhibit 8. In Exhibit 32, we find the following:

Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the question of who should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on deposit at the Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says, in effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being withdrawn by me in an "unwarranted" manner. Remember, the people of the united States were in dire economic straits at this point. If I had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing as much of my gold as I needed for my family and myself a "warranted" action. But the decision was not left up to We, the People.

It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being withdrawn for the "purpose of hoarding". The significance of this phrase becomes clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039, wherein the term "hoarding" is inserted into the amended version of Section 5 (b). The term, "hoarding", was not to be found in the original version of Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. It was a term which was used by President Roosevelt to help support his contention that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency, and his assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.

Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next page, Exhibit 9. In reading from Exhibit 9, we find the following:

exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit 31).
If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:

"by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof." ​

Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039 (Exhibits 32-33). On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039 on Exhibits 32 and 33, and now, on Exhibit 33 (a), let's see what Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:

"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday..."​

We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday. Let's read on:

"Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1 91 7, as amended, are approved and confirmed;"​

This section of the Proclamation clearly states that all proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President are approved and confirmed, citing the authority of section 5 (b). The key words here being "all" and "approved". Further:

"Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes"
​

We again clearly see that there is more to come, evidenced by the phrase, "further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933 ... " Could this be the beginning of a new deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How long can this type of action continue? Let's find out.

We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933 and Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such time as another proclamation is made by "the President". Note that the term "the President" is not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present, and beyond.

So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we are now beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and closing the national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that the Proclamations bringing about these actions will to continue "in full force and effect" until such time as the President, and only the President, changes the situation.

It is important to note the fact that these Proclamations were made on March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene its extra session. Yet references are made to such things as the amended Section 5 (b), which had not yet even been confirmed by Congress. President Roosevelt must have been supremely confident of Congress giving confirmation of his actions. And indeed, we find that confidence was justified. *** On March 9, 1933, without individual Congressmen even having the opportunity to read for themselves the bill they were to confirm, Congress did indeed approve the amendment of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. ***

Where had our gold gone? Our gold had already been moved offshore! The gold was not in the banks, and when We, the People lined up at the door attempting to have our contracts honored, the deception was exposed. What happened then? The laws were changed to prevent us from asking again, and the military was brought in to protect the Federal Reserve. We, the People, were declared to be the same as public enemy and placed under military authority.

Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 35):

Notice now to whom we refer to as "owning" the money!
​

By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in their gold. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of this provision, such violation to be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than ten years. It was a seizure. Whose property may be seized without due process of law under the Trading With the Enemy Act? The enemy's. Whose gold was seized? Ours -- the gold of the people of the united States. Are you seeing the fraud here now?
From the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 36):

Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9, 1933 and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes. From Title 4 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 37):

What is this saying? It says (emphasis is ours): "Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the united States ..."

That is a direct obligation of the united States? It's a treasury note, which is an obligation upon whom? Upon We, the People, to perform. It's a taxpayer obligation, isn't it?

Title 4 goes on:

What's a note? If you go to the bank and sign a note on your home, that's a note, isn't it? A note is a private obligation upon We, the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits either (a) public and/or (b) private obligation of We, the People, with the Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will issue this circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned, an emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private obligations of the people of the united States.

In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 38) , we find evidence that our congressmen didn't even have individual copies of the bill to read, on which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around for approximately 40 minutes.
Congressman McFadden made the comment,

Congressman McFadden later says,

Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve bank held our gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which we could redeem at any time we wanted. Now, however, Congressman McFadden is asking if this proposed bill is a plan to change who's going to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.

Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman McFadden's question, again from the Congressional Record:

We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, wasn't it? We were penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.

Congressman McFadden then questioned,

"Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true?​

Mr. Steagall replied,

"Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes."​

--Does that sound familiar?

Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 39):

Who is the collateral? We are - we are chattel, aren't we? We have no rights. Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes.
Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit 40):

"The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation."​

It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the Depression. It was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs - we were now slaves for the system.
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 41)

The Treasury was taken over by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Holding companies, the Depository Trust Co. and the CEDE Co., hold the assets. We are the collateral - we ourselves and our property.

To summarize briefly: On March 9,1933 the American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy.
The President of the united States, through licenses or any other form, was given the power to regulate and control the actions of enemies. He made We, the People, chattel property; he seized our gold, our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution.
And we know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress. Pretty broad, sweeping approval to be automatic, wouldn't you agree?

On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio "Fireside Chat" (Exhibit 42), makes the following statement:

It was by this action that the Federal Reserve took over the Treasury and the banking system.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 (Exhibit 42a) in the following words:

Take special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the phrase, "present law". The fact that banks are under regulation of the Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still exists, by virtue of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need any more evidence to prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency.

From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (Exhibit 43):

This is the seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing authority.

In the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar seizures by licensing authority were successfully completed by the government over a plethora of other industries, among them transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all natural resources. The first hundred days of FDR saw the nationalization of the united States, its people and its assets. What has Bill Clinton talked about during his campaign and early presidency? His first hundred days.

Now, we know that they took over all contracts, for we have already read in Exhibit 22:

"No contract is considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of law of either government, and they have, in the language of civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."​

They have no personal rights at law. Therefore, we should expect that we would see in the statutes a time when the contract between the Federal Reserve and We, the People, in which the Federal Reserve had to give us our gold on demand, was made null and void.
Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933) (Exhibit 44):

Indeed, our contract with the Federal Reserve was invalidated at the end of Roosevelt's hundred days. We lost our right to require our gold back from the bank in which we had deposited it.
Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 45):

What was the "broad powers"? That was the War Powers, wasn't it? And now we see the farm leaders asking President Roosevelt to use the same War Powers to take control of the agricultural industry. Well, needless to say, he did. We should wonder about all that took place at this conference, for it to result in the eventual acquiescence of farm leadership to the governmental take-over of their livelihoods.
Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 46):

Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support the national credit structure. Did he take the titles of all the land? Remember Contracts Payable in Gold? President Roosevelt needed the support, and agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of acres of farmland at that time, and the value of that farmland. The mortgage on that farmland was what supported the emergency credit. So President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money, didn't he? So he impressed agriculture into the public interest.

The farming industry was nationalized.

Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 47):

"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Congress..."
​

Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):

Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government "public policy".

All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, statutes, laws and regulations can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for over 60 years. We're not under law. Law has been abolished.

We're under a system of public policy, (War Powers).

So when you go into that courtroom with your Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you? He will probably say the court operates under "Statutory" Jurisdiction. Black's Law defines "Statutory" as being statutory. It's a circular definition. This is not a Constitutional court, but an executive tribunal operating under a totally different jurisdiction.

From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48):

If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with a crime, but with an offense.

Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,

Senator Church then made the comment:
"What you're saying, then, is that if Congress doesn't act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest."

​

No persona standi in judicio - no personal standing in the courts.

Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):

These agencies, of which there are now thousands, and which now control every aspect of our lives, were ostensibly created as temporary agencies meant to last only as long as the national emergency. They have become, in fact, permanent agencies, as has the state of national emergency itself. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: "We will never go back to the old order." That quote takes on a different meaning in light of what we have seen so far.

In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church:

We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words,

"Enormous Scope of Powers...A "Time Bomb".
​

Remember, this is Congress' own document, from the year 1973.

Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type of information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933 (Exhibit 52):

From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:

Remember that in the Constitution it states that Congress has the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can it be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the Constitution as its authority to do so?

Under Section 1 of the same Act (Exhibit 53) we find the following:

What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn't even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional dictatorship. There was not even a Congress in session for six weeks.

When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered the following statement into the Congressional record: "The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed..." This is the exact language of March 9,1933 and Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b), today.

We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency itself must be cancelled. Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13 (Exhibit 54):

"This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended."
​

Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had already delegated all of that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress (Exhibit 55):

​

It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not terminated for over 60 years.

Now, that's no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself. But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that it had been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report, how long do you think the blindness of the American public to this situation would have continued, and with it, the abolishment of the Constitution? But we're not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?

In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement from Senator Church:

"These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased."​

Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement (Exhibit 57):

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply (Exhibit 58) written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the termination of the standing national emergency:

From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935) (Exhibit 59):

What is being said here is that a tax can all be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn't it?
Quoting further from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 60):

Speaking of contracts, those contracts are coercion contracts. They are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They are under the belligerent capacity of government over enemies. They are not valid contracts.

Again from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 61):

​

Please, read the above paragraph again. The understanding of its meaning is vital.

The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the nationalization, unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it down flat. The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They said, in effect, "You're turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state, exercising uncontrolled police power."
What did Roosevelt do next? He stacked the Supreme Court, didn't he? And in 1937, United States v. Butler was overturned.

From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find (Exhibit 62):

The courts will tell you that is a political question, for they (the courts) do not have jurisdiction over the common law.

The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the common law. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find (Exhibit 63):

​

Now remember, WE THE PEOPLE are SOVEREIGN.

From Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 64):

So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, "Emergency Administration", a continuation of Exhibit 64:

"Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments."​

Thus, thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies are now sitting out there with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.

Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to the question of "booty". The following definition of the term, "prize" is to be found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Exhibit 65):

"Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land."​

This significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical, a fact which will become quite clear shortly.

Let us now remember that "Congress shall have the power to make rules on all captures on the land and the water." To reiterate, captures on the land are booty, and captures on the water are prize.

Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress shall have the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations of money for that purpose shall be for greater than two years. Here we can see that an army is not a permanent standing body, because, in times of peace, armies were held by the sovereign states as militia. So the United States had a navy during peacetime, but no standing army; we had instead the individual state militias, both organized and unorganized.

Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to the fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war. But in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the continental united States, because there was to be no army, and NO jurisdiction over Sovereign American citizens!

From the report "The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States", published by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading entitled "The Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War" (Exhibit 66), comes the following quote:

This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property within the continental united States on the land (booty), it must obtain "statutory" authority.

In this same section (Exhibit 66), we find the following words:

There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared, Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on the land by positive Congressional action. To continue with (Exhibit 66):

So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in its sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.

In Section 1 7 of the Act of October 6, 1 91 7, the Trading With the Enemy Act (Exhibit 67):

Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental united States. And at the time of the original, unamended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared "the enemy". We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.

In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law. This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did not occur until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938 (Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).

But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act. What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were now the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress. It was no longer be necessary , or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution for the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction.

Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 (Exhibit 68) states:

Later, in the same Executive Order (Exhibit 69), we find the following:

under the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a)​

Section 5 (b) certainly seems to be an oft-cited support for Presidential authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back to Exhibit 49, the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549:

​

The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every Sovereign American, is what type of acts can "almost anything" cover? What has been, and is being, done, by our government under the cloak of authority conferred by Section 5 (b)? By now, I think we are beginning to know.

Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won't it?
But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), the following words:

​

The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all.

The alarming situation in which We, the People, find ourselves today causes us to think back to a time over two hundred years ago in our nation's history when our forefathers were also laboring under the burden of governmental usurpation of individual rights. Their response, written in 1774, two years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the attempts of Great Britain to retain extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as the " Declaration Of Colonial Rights: Resolutions Of The First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774" (Exhibit 72).

And in that document, we find these words:

We can see now that we have come full circle to the situation which existed in 1774, but with one crucial difference. In 1774, Americans were protesting against a colonial power which sought to bind and control its colony by wartime powers in a time of peace. In 1994, it is our own government (as it was theirs) which has sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious method.
Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:

Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? That would be for the common law courts to decide. At this point in our nation's history, the point is moot, for common law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not operate or exist at present. Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation's money, the citizens' property, and American liberty as an ideal and a reality which have occurred since 1933 is treason against the people of the united States, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the united States cannot even be determined or argued in the legal sense until the Constitution itself is reestablished. -link-

_________________________________________________________
END
_________________________________________________________

Note from Brokor:
This information first came to me in 1996, from a printout handed to me by a fellow patriot. Back then, we did our research at the city hall law library and local library. We would obtain documentation on microfiche and photocopy Congressional Records, frequently perusing the Federal Register to verify every word. We did not have the internet with its vast information archives at that time, and I believe we actually benefited because of our labor. How many people today can actually claim to have done the hands-on research necessary to fully grant merit to any of this? Well, I can.

Not only have I studied this information, gone to great lengths to acquire the factual evidence in law, and tried as hard as I could to disprove it --I also found more information leading me to uncover even greater scandal concerning taxation and the monetary system. As far as what is above in this post, I have added it here for posterity since Barefootsworld may not be around forever. It is not copyrighted information, and is free for all.

* See also - Senate Report 93-549 attached below in .pdf format for your convenience *

I cleaned up the text format, simplified *most* of the quotes for ease of reading, and eliminated only one personal statement (by poster on BFW I assume) and a single quote allegedly from the papers of H. Hoover. I could not verify this quote, so I eliminated it from this particular posting. The original post is still at BFW, link provided at the bottom.
__________________________________________________________

Introduction to Dr. Schroder's Work
Dr. Eugene Schroder has found the key to why our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are violated daily. It's the insidious use of "emergency powers" meant to be used only in time of invasion of rebellion.
Dr. Schroder proves with the government's own documents that the Constitution has been effectively set aside since 1933. Eleven presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have used emergency powers for the last 67 years to regulate our daily lives without the inconvenience of Congressional approval. The definition of "emergencies" has been stretched to include economic problems, social imbalances, and perceived threats to the US by any foreign country's actions, even those on other continents.
Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, says "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency...Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the president may: seize property;...seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication;...restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
The president can act through Executive Order, Presidential Proclamation, or through his many agencies, which include most of the alphabet agencies.
The framers of the Constitution asserted that Americans have certain inalienable, God-given rights. But under emergency rule, all these rights are declared null and void. The government charges us for these rights by requiring licenses and excessive paperwork, with strings attached, as long as restrictive and ill-defined requirements are met.
Dr. Schroder's landmark research is documented in three books: Constitution: Fact or Fiction; War and Emergency Powers Special Report; and War, Central Planning and Corporations - The Corporate State. These may be obtained from Buffalo Creek Press

I would also suggest a complete and thorough study of "Our Enemy, the State" by Albert J. Nock, "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat, "Trial by Jury" by Lysander Spooner, "The Declaration of Independence" and of course, "The Constitution For These United States"

_______________________

Additional information on EWP: Emergency War Powers
Wikipedia: Senate Report 93-549 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_______________________​

 

I tried to edit the post as best I can, but there are still minor pieces that have been added to by Barefootsworld. The original document I have in possession is in storage, and I probably won't get around to a thorough checksum any time soon. In any case, I managed to get rid of some of the opinionated conjecture and leave only the facts. If anybody has questions, feel free to ask and perhaps I could clarify.

 

MYTH: The National Emergencies Act (PL 94-412) rescinded all emergencies declared by previous Presidents and removes any and all Proclamations.

Truth: The National Emergencies Act (PL 94-412) explicitly exempts the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 as amended, which is the Presidential Proclamation I referenced (#2039) and the empowering portion is Congress's approval USCA Title 12, Section 95(b) -all of this is clearly explained. Quoting from the National Emergencies Act, Section 502:

"SEC.502.(a)The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law. The powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder: (1)Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95A;50 U.S.C. App. 5(b));"

Let's take a look at current this current law and see the extent of the Presidential authority.

50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)

From Title 50-Appendix TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917 (ACT OCT. 6, 1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411)

Specifics:

§5. Suspension of provisions relating to ally of enemy; regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold or silver, property transfers, vested interests, enforcement and penalties

(a) The President, if he shall find it compatible with the safety of the United States and with the successful prosecution of the war, may, by proclamation, suspend the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] so far as they apply to an ally of enemy, and he may revoke or renew such suspension from time to time; and the President may grant licenses, special or general, temporary or otherwise, and for such period of time and containing such provisions and conditions as he shall prescribe, to any person or class of persons to do business as provided in subsection (a) of section four hereof [section 4(a) of this Appendix], and to perform any act made unlawful without such license in section three hereof [section 3 of this Appendix], and to file and prosecute applications under subsection (b) of section ten hereof [section 10(b) of this Appendix]; and he may revoke or renew such licenses from time to time, if he shall be of opinion that such grant or revocation or renewal shall be compatible with the safety of the United States and with the successful prosecution of the war; and he may make such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Act [said sections]; and the President may exercise any power or authority conferred by this Act [said sections] through such officer or officers as he shall direct.

If the President shall have reasonable cause to believe that any act is about to be performed in violation of section three hereof [section 3 of this Appendix] he shall have authority to order the postponement of the performance of such act for a period not exceeding ninety days, pending investigation of the facts by him.

(b)(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise-

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this subdivision or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this subdivision, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

(3) As used in this subdivision the term "United States" means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this subdivision the term "person" means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation.

(4) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 [section 2404 of this Appendix], or under section 6 of that Act [section 2405 of this Appendix] to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code.

(Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 106, §5, 40 Stat. 415; Sept. 24, 1918, ch. 176, §5, 40 Stat. 966; Mar. 9, 1933, ch. 1, §2, 48 Stat. 1; May 7, 1940, ch. 185, §1, 54 Stat. 179; Dec. 18, 1941, ch. 593, title III, §301, 55 Stat. 839; Proc. No. 2695, eff. July 4, 1946, 11 F.R. 7517, 60 Stat. 1352; Pub. L. 95–223, title I, §§101(a), 102, 103(b), Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1625 , 1626; Pub. L. 100–418, title II, §2502(a)(1), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1371 ; Pub. L. 103–236, title V, §525(b)(1), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 474 .)