"Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence…Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

There's NO such thing as “emergency powers” that anyone serving or working within either of the state or federal governments in the USA that they can “evoke”, not lawfully. Those within the federal or state governments can claim “emergency powers” for anything they want and the ONLY thing they do is make criminals of those who are too ignorant or are domestic enemies of the USA and actually try to enforce these “pretend” “laws” when they should have immediately arrested those who wrote and gave those orders. They fooled the people who never bothered to learn what part they themselves play within our nation, what powers they actually were granted to use, and now the people are paying for it.

Which means the Militia of the several states will need to press charges and arrest them for their crimes; along with the domestic enemies or traitors who created it under the “color of law” which has no LAWFUL basis or authority behind it here in the USA. Why the Militia of the several states? Because the Militia is THE Constitutionally assigned lawful body to:

• Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution,

• Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),

• Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and

• “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

• Insurrections can be those who are in governmental offices working together to destroy our legitimate government – state or federal.

Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60.

Starting out with the definition of the words “lawful” and “legal” first since they are used interchangeably though they have different meanings.

“Lawful”: in accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. Ex: Constitution of the United States of America, state Constitutions

“Legal”: the “color of law”, “appearance of law”, “pretense of law without the substance of lawfulness”, “misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state”. Ex: Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, NSA, Warrantless spying/tracking/searches/etc, “giving' authority over the US Military to the UN, using UN and foreign laws, etc

Because there's no “emergency powers” given within the US Constitution to any or all of the branches of the federal government; or any powers that are not defined and remedies allowed put forth, Anything done in the name of “emergency powers” is criminal in action. Worse, those unlawful enforcement actions makes them criminals though they might have done this misdeed with no knowledge that they were committing criminal acts. Yet, they still must be held accountable for those actions because they were REQUIRED as part of the contract agreed to when they took the office or position they occupy to take this Oath and keep it, or one similar to it:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Notice that the most words describe exactly what they are to do for the US Constitution before anything else, including following orders of US presidents and/or orders of those above them or the duties of the position or office they will be occupying. Also notice that “obey the orders of the President of the United States” is joined in the same sentence with “and the orders of the officers appointed over me”, that is how low on the priority scale those presidential orders are compared to the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it. Plus that the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” is mentioned because it requires ONLY lawful orders to be followed. So as many in the US Military found out before, THEY are held accountable for their actions following orders or not because they are REQUIRED to know what the oath says and MEANS.

Dr. Edwin Vieira:

“This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides...

The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights...

The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

... the famous case Norton v. Shelby County... The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution...”

What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment... What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.

If we go to the doctrine of “Emergency Powers,”... what was the foundational case that put that doctrine on the constitutional map? It was Knox vs. Lee, the legal tender cases brought after the Civil War.

...

... read a dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Field, the only Justice on the Supreme Court who had the integrity to dissent in every legal tender case that he heard. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Dooley vs. Smith, in 1872. He wrote, “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.”

You notice he was not talking specifically about the monetary powers. He wasn’t saying that these arguments would lead to the monetary powers being unrestrained. It was destroying the concept of limited government. “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress.” How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government...

The Federal Reserve System was there when the greatest banking collapse in American history occurred, in 1932-1933, and in what was called the Great Depression of the 1930s. In that period what happened? The Roosevelt New Deal. What were the powers they were screaming for? Emergency powers. You’ll find that written into many statutes, e.g., The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. You should pay attention to the title, The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, and the “Aggregate Powers” doctrine. It’s been all downhill since then.

... 

How should that have been done? Well, Americans would have had to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? [holding a copy of the Constitution] It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “we the people.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the people. We the people are the principals.

The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers...

The Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy, their knowledge unequaled by any today. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly here in the United States. What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”

We the people are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters. (Dr. Edwin Vieira, http://www.constitution.org/mon/vieira_03225.htm )

Notice that it was the Supreme courts “gave” “emergency powers”, though it was not, and still is not, a power granted to them to give or use.

James Madison proposed the Bills of Rights to the new Congress on June 8, 1789. It was finally created after much arguing and discussion in the respective State legislatures which were debating the ratification of the new Constitution.

Madison said,

"That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution."

And that

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor for applying to the legislature by petitions or remonstrances for redress of their grievances...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Madison also stated,

"The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized."

He included,

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The Bill of Rights was unequaled in its time in the limits it put upon those who would serve within the federal government and the state governments and the protections of the people's natural rights; and is still surpassed by none today. This is what made the rulers of other nations hate America and Americans for being upstarts, going against what they considered the normal flow; different classes of people lower then one another. How dare Americans be equal, not bowing their heads in servility to their “betters” when in different nations, instead speaking to them as their equals.

Constitutional Enforcement has been the problem in the USA. Caused by the slow progressive (name your “ism”) takeover of all media – now a cartel, schools, and even religions – which does not say there is a fault with religions, the faults lie with the those in higher positions within the religions who sold-out for earthly goods. The non support and training of the Militias of the several states being ridiculed as not needed, stupid, activists, etc left us pretty much defenseless against the traitors and domestic enemies that began to hold office within both the federal and state governments. Remember, law enforcement and the military are governmental agencies – they work for the government - though are paid for by the people whom they and those within the governmental agencies are lawfully required to protect. It is only the Militia's of the several states – made up of the people themselves – that would / will / and SHALL keep the well-being of the people at the forefront and not “just follow orders” or “just do their jobs”, unlawful though those orders or demands be from their superiors making the enforcers criminals.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChurchVState/TestOath/su...

The US Constitution does not allow for those elected or hired to implement or install “emergency powers”. It is not in their job description, the contract they agreed to when they took the governmental office or position they occupy – elected or hired, military or nonmilitary. The Bill of Rights is a list of further restrictions put upon those who serve or occupy governmental positions; the US Constitution defining exactly what they can do, which restricts, forbids anything else that is not specifically listed there. It does not allow for “executive orders” or “judicial orders” rather it forbids them in Article I, Section. 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Nor does it allow “emergency powers” under whatever pretext those in governmental positions would like to pretend they can use against us.

The word “All” in Article I, Section. 1 is all inclusive, meaning no one in the executive branch or within the judicial branch nor their “minions”, may create laws, executive orders, emergency powers, etc. (“All”: the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of). That “power”, “authority” is denied to those who serve within any capacity in those two branches: executive and judicial.

The entire concept of "emergency powers" was repudiated by the Supreme Court, in Panama Refining Corp. v. Ryan and then again in A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.(Roosevelt's New Deal legislation)

In Schecter, "the NRA attorneys, led by General Counsel Donald Richberg, strongly advocated the use of the 'emergency powers doctrine.'"

The Justices did not accept the government's arguments. . . .

Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Hughes also dealt a death blow to the emergency powers doctrine. Counsel for the government's opponents relied on [Ex Parte] Milligan, arguing that an "emergency does not increase constitutional power nor diminish constitutional restrictions." Yielding to their appeal, the Chief Justice retreated from the near-endorsement he had given the emergency powers doctrine in [Home Building & Loan Association v.] Blaisdell. "Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power," he declared. The Court conceded that such conditions might well require extraordinary remedies, but that did not "justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority." Those who acted under authorization of the Constitution, the Court said, were not free to transcend the limitations upon the power that it granted merely because they believed that more or different power was necessary.

After Schecter ( A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.) the Supreme Court's attitude started shifting. It went from making sure that ALL laws, etc were in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution as the duty was assigned to them until National Labor Relations Act, when the Supreme Court began to uphold every piece of New Deal legislation that it considered. This was NOT “Good Behaviour” being practiced by the courts and the people should have removed them immediately.

Then the case of U.S. v. Macintosh, which overruled the case of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. contributed greatly in transforming America from basically a Christian nation into more of a "government controlled State."

Senate Report 92549, which was written in 1973, says that the USA has been in a state of declared national emergency since 1933, which means that we have been - and still are - are living under “emergency rule” an unlawful state here in the USA. A multitude of “laws” have been put on the books since 1933 that have unlawfully, but steadily, increased the power of the federal government.

Supposedly, now a US president could even institute Martial Law under these “new socialist” pretenses of law. Under martial law, travel can be restricted, and all forms of communications can be controlled. Martial Law is unlawful here in the USA, it is treason being committed by all involved; from those that initiate it, to those who “just do their jobs” and “just follow orders” and implement it

The Constitution is a Document that was inspired by God. Obviously the Founding fathers had enough insight to include provisions within it for emergencies, along with their allowed remedy’s. http://groundzeromedia.org/archives/dis/control/control.html

Emergency Powers (http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/constitutional_p... )

In times of crisis presidents often lay claim to extraordinary powers to preserve the nation. Such emergency powers are neither granted expressly to the president nor delegated to Congress by the Constitution. Instead, they are judged to reside purely in the need for leaders to protect national sovereignty and domestic order. The mandate in Article II that the president “preserve, protect and defend” the US Constitution and uphold its provisions is considered (by those who want those powers) to contain implicitly the notion of emergency powers. Yet that cannot be true since they are required to “PRESERVE”, not only “protect and defend” the US Constitution. In actuality all US Presidents are held to a higher standard then everyone else as they are the ones charges with implementing the “laws of the land” - all that are IN Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

Notice that the Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses which set forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President's assigned power. The President is required to take the oath after he assumes the office but before he can lawfully execute it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting - the clause limits how the President's "executive power" is to be exercised.

Both the state and the federal governments get their powers from the people. From those who would know:

Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

Alexander Hamilton: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

James Madison, Federalist 46, 315-23: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes... They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”

James Madison: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.”

Federalist Number 57, James Madison wrote that Congress "can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Abraham Lincoln: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”

Madison, Federalist 39: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." 

Alexander Hamilton: “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”