U.S. Under Marshall Law?

Following the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson opposed passage of the Reconstruction Act. He vetoed it, but his veto was overturned. In his "Veto Message of the Reconstruction Act," he explained that martial law was being declared by the provisions of the act and he, to his credit, was opposed to it.

Unfortunately, Johnson lost that battle, and the Reconstruction Act placed the nation under martial law rule for the first time in our history. THAT MARTIAL LAW HAS NEVER BEEN REPEALED.

Folks who run around worrying about when martial law is going to be declared to "take it all away" don't know what they're talking about. We've been under technical and legal martial law for over a century.

Here are Johnson's comments which explain in some detail exactly what the Reconstruction Act was designed to do--and DID do. They are extensive quotes. TAKE THE TIME TO READ THEM, and then I'll show you how this set the stage for Executive Orders and the complete subversion of what we thought was the supreme law of the land:

"I have examined the Bill to provide for more efficient government of the rebel states with the care and anxiety which its transcended importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give my assent for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must ultimately rest.

"The Bill places all the people therein named under the absolute domination of military rules, and the Preamble undertakes to give the reason upon which the measure is based, and the ground upon which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those states no legal governments and no adequate protection for life, property, and assets; and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits.

"This is not true, as a matter of fact. The excuse given for the Bill in the Preamble is admitted by the Bill itself not to be real. The military rule, which it establishes, is plainly to be used not for any purpose of order, or the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.

"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope, and object, without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive to those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.

"The authority here amounts to absolute despotism. Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England for more than 500 years. It reduces the whole population, all persons of every color, sex, and condition, and every stranger, to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this Bill gives.

"This Proposition is perfectly clear that no branch of the federal government, executive, legislative, or judicial, can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic laws of the union. Outside of the Constitution, we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it, we have only so much as that instrument gives us.

"This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of the states which are within the union, but shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all.

"When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, he may deal with them according to his pleasure because he had that power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he must still govern according to law.

"This is a Bill by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the states either war or insurrection. The laws of the states and of the federal governments are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection--none of these appear, and none of these, in fact, exist. It is not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is threatened.

"We see that martial law comes in only when actual war closes the courts and deposes civil authority. But this Bill in time of peace makes martial law operate as though we were in actual war, and becomes the cause instead of the consequence of the abrogation of civil authority.

"This is sufficiently explicit: peace exists in all the territory to which this Bill applies. It asserts a power in Congress in time of peace to set aside laws of peace and to substitute the laws of war. The purpose, an object of the Bill, the general intent which pervades it from beginning to end, is to change the entire structure and character of the states' governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves." [end of quotes]

Now, despite President Johnson's Veto Message, the Reconstruction Act was passed, and martial law fell upon the land. It remains in effect over the citizens of the sovereign states today through the continued use of Executive Orders, under the pretense of national emergencies -- in the same way that the War Powers Act of 1933 was hustled through to approval...national emergency.


Further proof that martial law remained in effect after the Civil War can be found in the "Congressional Globe" (now called the "Congressional Record"). The following are excerpts from the April 20th through 29th, 1870 "Congressional Globe" concerning H.R. 1328 which established the Department of Justice to CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT MARTIAL LAW nearly five years after the end of the Civil War:

"The following bureaus shall be established in this department [the Department of Justice]: a Bureau of International Law, a Bureau of Revenue Law, a Bureau of Military and Naval Law, a Bureau of Postal Law, a Bureau of Land Management Law."

Congressman Lawrence then said in the record:

"This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all subjects of martial law, and the cognizance of all subjects of military and naval law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the supervision of records.

"If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice.

"In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving legal opinions to the Secretary of War relating to the status of the states of the union, their right to call upon the government for military protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be limited. The Judge Advocate General will perform duties administrative in their character and almost exclusively so.

"But I will state to the House why, in my judgment, no transfer of the Judge Advocate General or of his duties to the Department of Justice has been proposed in this Bill. If this had been done, the Bill would have encountered the opposition of some of the officers of the Bureau of Military Justice and their friends, and so great is the power of men in office, so difficult is it to abolish an office, that we were compelled in the consideration of this subject to leave officers in this Bureau untouched in their official tenure in order that this Bill might get through Congress.

"But so far as the Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General is concerned, he is transferred with all his supervisory power over naval court martials and the records and proceedings of such courts, so that to that extent, this Bill accomplishes the great purpose which it has in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government. It is misfortunate that there should be different constructions of the laws of the United States by different law officers of the United States."


These traitors knew they would have encountered opposition from the military with the provisions of H.R. 1328, so they decided to leave the military officers untouched during their tenure, and transfer them to supervisory positions over court martials. This appeased the military leaders, who didn't have the foggiest idea as to what was really going on.

Had the traitors fleeced the military of all their powers during their tenure in office, the military would have realized and possibly taken some military action. But as nothing was happening at the hen house, they slept through this entire situation which resulted in an overthrow of the Constitution -- an overthrow under which government pretended to operate in 1933, and under which it continues to pretend to operate today.

The traitors were now faced with a very serious problem, namely, what to do with the powers of the Office of the Judge Advocate General when their tenure in office expired. And they solved this dilemma by adding the following amendments, detailed in that same "Congressional Globe":

Congressman Jenks: I move to amend Section 3 by inserting the word "naval" before the words "Judge Advocate General".

The amendment was agreed to and later Congressman Finkelburg stated:

I would suggest the propriety of amending the third section of this Bill by inserting after the words "the Naval Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General" the words "who shall hereafter be known as Naval Solicitor".

Mr. Jenks: I have no objection to that amendment.

This amendment was also agreed to, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General became known as the Naval Solicitor. Thus, when the existing tenure was over, the new office would have a different set of rules and regulations so that the Bill accomplished the great purpose which it had in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government without the power of the Office of the Judge Advocate General getting in their way.

This was a necessary step to bring the President into the position of dictator over America.

But they had one other problem facing them, namely, DIRECT ACCESS to the Treasury for the Department of Justice without interference. They accomplished this by the following three sections of the Bill:

"...The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government....

"...The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby repealed....

"...The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General...."

It is important here to remember that under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the District Courts of the United States are:

"...hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise and all such orders and decrees and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act."

It is here that we find out that the district attorneys, marshals, clerks and other officers of the courts are under the Department of Justice. That seems an obvious statement, given the state of the nation today. But the REAL PROBLEM -- given the broad scope of powers granted the District Courts under the Trading with the Enemy Act -- is that the Department of Justice is *NOT* a part of the Judicial Branch of Government!

According to Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the Department of the Veteran Affairs are *ALL* under the Executive Branch of Government.

All of the above departments are under the Executive Branch--which raises quite a few questions about the balance of powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government.

How can this be? There is no balance of power under a declared state of emergency. And we've been living under a declared state of emergency ever since the Civil War began, and have been living under a declared state of martial law ever since the Reconstruction Act.

This overthrow of the Constitution occurred long before the War Powers Act, and if we are going back in history to find our roots of legality -- and if we stop our search when we reach the War Powers Act -- we are NOT going to succeed in this venture.

Where is the separation of powers if the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch? Shouldn't it be part of the Judiciary? The answer, of course, is yes; but it's not. Again, just check Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

If only Congress has the power to regulate Commerce, under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, why are the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation under the Executive branch and not under the Legislative branch?

And if only the Congress has the power to coin money, according to the Constitution, why is the Department of Treasury under the Executive branch?

The Commerce Department (from Title 5):

"...part of the Executive branch of federal government, headed by a Cabinet member, the Secretary of Commerce, which is concerned with promoting domestic and international business and commerce."

To further illustrate the take-over by the Executive branch of government via martial law, the following offices, bureaus, divisions, and organizations are under the Department of Justice. And remember, the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch -- NOT under the judicial branch.


The Office of Solicitor General 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

The Drug Enforcement Agency  

The Bureau of Prisons

Immigration and Naturalization

United States Marshal Service

Office of Justice Program

United States Parole Commission

United States National Central Bureau

The Office of the Pardon Attorney

Executive Office of the United States Attorney

Criminal Division 

Civil Division

Anti-Trust Division

Civil Rights Division

Tax Division

Environmental and Natural Resource Division

Community Relations Services

Foreign Claim Settlement Division

Executive Office of United States Trustees

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Justice Management Division

Office of Legal Counsel

Office of Policy Development

Office of Legislative Affairs

Office of Public Affairs

Office of Liaison Services

Office of Intelligence and Policy Review

Office of International Affairs

Office of the Inspector General

Office of Professional Responsibility; and   

-- (Note: Interpol is a private corporation, yet it comes under (in this country) the Executive branch of government.)

The Search For Wisdom And Freedom produced by WORLD NEWSSTAND

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.

CopyrightŠ 2003, 2016
All Rights Reserved