A Suspended Constitution: The History, Reality & Consequences

A Suspended Constitution: The History, Reality & Consequences

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: David New

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 8/6/26. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand in the Gap Today, and it’s also our bimonthly emphasis on the Constitution and American history with Constitutional Attorney David New. Now, most Americans, and I’m sure most all of you listening to me right now, we revere the US Constitution because we recognize that our system of government, our unmatched freedom and prosperity, which we’ve enjoyed for so long, it does stem directly from the framework of strictly limited government based as we know, and here’s a key, the general public may not agree with this. We know though, as we’ve talked about in other programs, that the principles behind our system of government come right off the pages of the Bible, Judeo-Christian elements. That’s why we’ve used those words before, and David and I have talked about that in depth before. John Adams reminded us that our system was made only for a moral and religious people.

Very key. Calvin Coolidge called living under our frame of government as the greatest political privilege in human history. Yet today, there are many amongst us, secularists, you could put them that way, radical political factions, and others, frankly, who just no longer understand the wisdom of the framework of government that we have had and enjoyed for so long. They actually, many are openly advocating the dismantling of such things as Article two, Presidential Powers, and Article three, Judicial Authority, wanted to break up the separation of government. That’s happening right now. So it’s a big deal and it’s important that we look at it. Now, what many citizens do not realize is that our constitutional order has faced grave structural threats, not just right now, but in the past. And according to official findings, and we’re going to share some of these, so stay tuned, you’ll want to hear these, but according to official findings, even from our own US Senate, key provisions of the US Constitution were technically suspended for over 40 years.

Get that? Our constitution technically suspended for over 40 years from the years, 1933 to 1976. How? Well, under continuous overlapping states of emergency. Now, today we’re going to examine whether that dangerous precedent, which did exist, and we’ll talk about all that went into that, whether that’s truly ended or simply perhaps evolved into some modern executive overreach and a suspended constitution, but just under another name. And with that, David, welcome back to the program. It’s great to have you back as always.

David New:

It’s so nice to be with you and everybody. Blessings to everyone.

Sam Rohrer:

David, let’s start here because I want to get your comments on what’s happening in Iran. You have some thoughts on that. So into this first segment, we’ll get that right at the end. But let’s jump into what we’re going here because both of us, you as a constitutional attorney, you have a profound reference for the US Constitution. I, as somebody have been in office and taking the oath of office to support and to defend the Constitution nine times, we share that profound reverence. But when any administration in Washington, that administration, when any administration, their attempts to bypass, to redefine or suspend that sacred framework, we take it seriously. Now, you point to US Senate report 93-549 as evidence that emergency rule effectively suspended constitutional checks from 1933 to 1976. And you’re going to break that out further and cite some of that actual report in the next segment.

But what happened? And I want you to lay this out just briefly, just overview. How did emergency declarations under that period of time included FDR, Franklin Deller and Roosevelt, Truman, and Nixon? How did those things allow the executive branch to govern in effect without standard legislative limits and go unaddressed by Congress until 1976?

David New:

Well, the short answer is they did not have the authority to do that. Congress gave up their authority and this allowed these presidents to act without congressional authority. And it’s a frightening period of our history in the United States. Very few people know anything about what we’re going to be discussing today. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to download your free copy issued by the United States Senate, it’s number 93-549. It was issued on November 19, 1973. And of course you can download it for free on the internet. US Senate Report 93-549. And of course, this US Senate report is printed by the US Government Planning Office. And this is a record of absolute reckless behavior by the government. There’s no other way to put it. There’s nothing good about it. Of course, the one starting in 1933 is because of the Depression.

And I understand that the Depression was a very, very serious challenge. We think today socialism is becoming a challenge to the United States. But at that time, socialism, communism was very much a threat to the security of the United States and to the national economy.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, David, I want you to hold it right there. That’s a good setup, ladies and gentlemen. Stay with us because that’ll be explained more in the next segment and actually some provisions out of that report. But David, in the last minute, you had some thoughts wanted to share about what’s happening in our range. Put that in here before we go to the next break.

David New:

Yes. I have said before that what we need to do, we cannot bomb Iran into submission. There’s no way you can win. What needs to happen is that there needs to be an army created by Israel and by the Gulf States and by the European powers who depend upon the strait of Hormuz for their oil to establish a new Iranian government within Iran proper somewhere and establish that as a new legal government. That will change the situation overnight. It will put the Tehran government on the defensive. They will now be fighting for their survival. And we can do this. It’s very risky, but to continue with the situation as it is now is even more risky.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay. David, thank you for your thoughts on that. And ladies and gentlemen, we talk a lot about what’s happening in Iran. And could that happen to what David’s talking about? It’s possible. Is there a great risk involved? 100% risk. But again, as we often talk about Iran, you can’t really understand what’s happening there or will happen in the Middle East until you factor in biblical prophecy because the nation of Persia, Iran, Russia, and the neighboring countries are all identified and therefore there’s a whole lot involved. Anyways, with that in mind, we’ll hold it right there. Come back. We’ll continue with a suspended constitution. The history, the reality, and the consequences.

If you’re just joining us today, my guest today, recurring guest, Constitutional Attorney David New, and I have chosen a theme since we talk about the Constitution, that is the purpose of this bimonthly program and tie into it some American history because they do work together. But this one today is on the theme. And here’s our title, A Suspended Constitution. Think about that. A Suspended Constitution. The History. We’re going to give some of that next. The reality, third segment, I’m going to give some examples of how it’s actually happening, and then some consequences and we’ll wrap it up in the last segment. But with that in mind, in our first segment, we noted, David shared just briefly, that in 1976, Congress attempted to end what was then viewed as an open-ended presidential rule. In other words, US presidents could nearly, unrestrained by Congress, do things and cause things to happen out of the executive branch run by the president.

Well, that bypassed Congress, among other things. And in 1976, they passed what is known as the National Emergencies Act. And when that happened, they rescinded old emergency declarations and they required annual renewals. An emergency was declared it had to be renewed every year. Now, we’ll talk more about that. But while legal scholars would argue some anyways, that this fixed the formal constitutional defect, some actually called it a constitutional defect. I’m not sure that it is that case, but nonetheless, the operational reality tells, I think, a very different story. For instance, declaring a national emergency today, post this act of 1976, National Emergencies Act. A president who, after that point, declares a national emergency today still automatically unlocks nearly 150 standby, they would refer to standby statutory authorities delegated by Congress, meaning that the president can, upon declaration of an emergency, cause things to happen that would supersede anything that would be in law and/or frankly the Constitution.

And it’s in these areas, property seizure, resource reallocation to broad economic sanctions of all types. And it goes far beyond that. Furthermore, after the Supreme Court invalidated legislative vetoes in 1983, one of the things that happened in 1976 was Congress said, all right, we’re also going to take back power or whatever. And by a concurrent resolution, a majority vote does not require presidential signature that Congress could curtail certain actions by a president under a declaration. Well, US Supreme Court stepped in in 1983 and they overruled Congress and said, “No, you can’t do that. It has to be a two-thirds vote nearly impossible to get. And the president has to agree with it and sign it.” Now, that obviously you can see as a problem. So rather than eliminating emergency governance, the post 1976 framework, as I just described, what it is today, post 76, you could actually say it actually standardized it.

Now, while statutory reform in 1976 was intended to restore constitutional balance, still today, as I cited, over 130 to 148 standby statutory authorities remain on the books, but it allows the president who invokes an emergency, allows them to bypass the standard legislative processes once an emergency is declared. All right. I think you can see the issue involved here. David, Congress around that 1976 time came to a point where sufficient members realized that there was a constitutional problem that happened under their watch and where their own constitutional powers had either been yielded up by themselves, perhaps in conjunction with the executive branch, led by presidents on both parties who wanted more power and perhaps more, as some of them have said, expedited power with less accountability. So here’s what I’m going to ask you right here. What did they conclude that led up to the National Emergencies Act and what were some of the things that they actually admitted in that US Senate report 93-549?

David New:

Yes, it was a very frightening situation. Just before I get to that, I want to complete my thought about Iran. I do not believe US troops should be on the ground. I believe it only should be Israeli troops, Gulf State troops, the Arabs, and European troops, and only about 10 or 15,000 will be needed, supported by American air power. Once that happens, and make the Shah, this Shah’s son, the head of the new Iranian government with the promise that he will lead the country into democracy. Once that happens and you arm the people, the population, more and more territories will simply change their allegiance from Tehran to the new Iranian government. It will begin to collapse in no time. Now, this Senate report 93549, the title of it is Emergency Power Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Times of National Emergency.

The report goes on to say, “The report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency United States Senate.” Now here’s some of the sentences in this. This is unbelievable.

“Since March nine, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. “Look at that. “Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a declared national emergency.” Here’s another quote from the Senate report. “A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by the laws brought into force by states of national emergency. “So here we are, for those of us who lived from 1933 to 1976, the majority of the people of this country lived in the state of national emergency for over 40 years. This is insane. Absolute insane.

Sam Rohrer:

David, it is. It’s also unconstitutional. It just doesn’t make sense, not make sense. It is frankly, there’s no provision there. What does the Constitution say? Let’s go here in this point, David. What does the Constitution say? Is there any evidence that you would cite from history where our framers, the writers of the Constitution, the Constitution itself imagines, well, that any of its provisions could be suspended, circumvented, that the executive branch could undo legislative authority or the legislature undo executive authority as prescribed in the Constitution? Speak to that a little bit.

David New:

Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, please get out your Constitution and turn to Article one, Section nine. We’re going to discuss what the US Constitution actually says about emergency powers. Here, I want to read again to show you some of the laws that are involved by the Senate report. “These proclamations give force the 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all encompassing manners. This vast range of powers taken together confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. “What they’re saying is there’s enough power given to the president in these 470 laws that listed from 33 to 76 to where the president doesn’t need a Congress. Let me read the next quote to show you some of the things this kind of stuff was going on in this country.

“Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, aside military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication.”

Sam Rohrer:

And with that, David, hold it because we’re out of time. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’ll be back. We’ll continue that because what David is citing there as cited in 1976 still happens today. Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap Today as today we’re talking about a subject you may not have heard a lot about before, but we’ve entitled it a Suspended Constitution, US Constitution. The history, we’ve given some of that. First segment, alluded to it, build it out a little bit more in the last segment. Reality of it. We’ll deal with that in this segment primarily. And then we’ll talk about some consequences. How it actually works out. We’ll talk about that in the fourth segment. Now, let me go into this and then Dave, we’ll go back and tie in some of what in the last segment you didn’t have time to fully complete, but that’s okay because it ties into this.

But in recent decades, ladies and gentlemen, recent decades, this was post 1976 when Congress theoretically corrected the problem of presidential emergencies. And that citation David read from that in the last segment. But in recent decades, presidents across both political parties, and it’s important, I want to note that. This is not a Democrat issue. It’s not a Republican issue. It is a frame of government issue. It’s much bigger. And I’ve often said on here that in reality, we have a uni party when you get right down to it in DC. And I think that’s an accurate description. And I’ve been in office before. I’ve seen it. Do I think that’s the case? Yeah, I do. I do think that’s the case. But in this matter of emergencies, presidents from both parties have increasingly embraced emergency declarations and unilateral executive actions as standard tools for policymaking. President Trump, for instance, has frequently noted that he likes executive orders and he’s done a lot of them.

Why? Well, he stated that because he can accomplish far more under emergency authority than through traditional legislation. And of course that’d be true. How is that demonstrated? Well, it’s happened a couple of times, but once in the administration, the Trump administration reallocated military construction funds for border wall construction. That was one. That was an example, not appropriated by Congress for that purpose. He just did it under executive order. Emergency declaration. And then he still continues to praise COVID warp speed shot development. They just recently discussed that. Along with that whole COVID pandemic emergency, a lot of things happened. Nationwide lockdowns, other abridgements of freedom only possible under the declared pandemic emergency. However, President Obama also utilized sweeping executive actions through declared emergencies to bypass Congress on matters such as immigration and healthcare enforcement. President Biden invoked public health emergencies. One very prominent one was called the Heroes Act, where he attempted to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.

Remember? How did that happen? You’d say. Well, under an emergency declaration. So when public health or national security or border crises or whatever it is, can become standing justifications publicly to justify to the public generally, or perhaps as threats to circumvent Congress, go along and don’t oppose what I’m doing or I’m going to do something else to you. All of that is what actually is termed governance by emergency. And what happens? Well, you bypass the Constitution, of course, and you replace the rule of law with something else. Now, David, these things that I’ve just laid out, one can make a case and some do. Well, it’s more efficient. Obviously, you can get more done as a dictator than you can by splitting everything up between three branches of government and slowing the process down, that kind of thing. So there’s a lot of justification for it.

But the fact of the matter is it is happening and that it’s a direct impact on the Constitution in that regard. So I’m going to ask you a question here and then we’ll kind of go back into it. But would you not agree, David, that in reality, the Constitution is still being suspended and where we’ve entered a time where governing by emergency has become a substitute for constitutional legislation? I may come into it from this perspective. Our founders weren’t trying to make the most efficient form of government when they laid out the Constitution, because that’s a monarchy, a dictatorship, whatever it would be. But they built something different that in the long room is better. Speak to that a little bit. Is efficiency the primary goal of our framers or is the public good or something else the goal that our framers desired?

David New:

Well, our system of government is not very efficient at all. And it wasn’t meant to be. Look at the situation. You’ve got a federal government further divided into a legislative, executive and judicial branch. Then you got 50 state governments with an executive, legislative and judicial branch. This is scrambled eggs all the way. And it’s very inefficient to run a country. It’s a really crazy way to do business, but it’s great to prevent dictatorships. Now, I want to finish that quote from the Senate about what these laws that went in force from 33 to 76, what they did. We almost finished the quote. I’m going to read it again. This is unbelievable. You need to download a copy of Senate report 93546 and look at what this stuff did. Under the powers delegated by these statutes to the president, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad.

Institute martial law. Seize and control all transportation and communication. Regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. That is the quote from Senate report 93549. Get your copy and let people know this is the way Congress behaves at times. And like Sam has been pointing out, a lot of this nonsense is still going on. I think we wanted to discuss what does the Constitution have to say about emergency powers? Is that right, Sam? Yeah.

Sam Rohrer:

Anything. Give any reference to that that you can that speaks to effectively what is happening. Constitution. Some would say, well, the Constitution is totally silent on this kind of abridgement, let’s put it that way, or violation. Is it?

David New:

Oh yes, it is silent. Let me read one commentary from the Senate report. It said, “There are, however, limits and restraints upon the president and his exercise of emergency powers with the exception of the habeas corpus clause.” Listen, ladies and gentlemen, listen. “With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. “End of quote. All right. Let’s go to Article one. Section nine. This is the only part of the Constitution of the United States that allows certain emergency powers. Let’s read the sentence. Article one, section nine.

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. “That’s it. That’s the whole authority that the Constitution provides for emergency powers to suspend the ordinary powers of government. That is it. It doesn’t allow the Constitution to let the government control all communication, TV and radio newspapers. It doesn’t allow the United States government to operate all the businesses in the country and to restrict American citizens from traveling from one point to another. None of that is in the Constitution. Article one, Section nine. If anybody asks you, what does the Constitution say about emergency powers? You just go to Article one, Section nine and what I read to you. That is it.

Sam Rohrer:

And David, that is very clear. And ladies and gentlemen And every congressman, every senator, every president, every governor, every legislator within every state should know that. But did they not all step aside during the COVID emergency and prohibit moving about, going to church, speech? And you wonder, how did that happen? Well, I said on this program five years ago, the Constitution had been suspended. That’s how it happens. And does it happen right now? Yes, it does. And it is. In the next segment, I’ll show just a couple of examples, how it’s still being done ongoing right now with no problem.

Well, as we go into our final segment, now if you’ve been with us from the beginning on this program today, Constitutional David New and I have attempted to tackle a very, very big issue, far too much to condense into one hour, but we wanted to touch on and deliver some basic details, historical facts, and the reality of, which I did in the last segment, the history which we did in segment two and segment one, and then talk about some of the consequences now of this practice of suspending the Constitution. Now, no one in Washington, no president, no member of Congress has ever gone out and lobbied the public or stated publicly, “We are now going to violate our constitutional oath, just so you can be aware. And we are going to now do things that actually suspend the Constitution and its primal role as the basis of the rule of law in our country.” No, no, no.

Nobody’s ever going to say that. Of course not. But has it happened? Yeah. And that’s what we shared here. In this act of 1976, Congress decided that, well, executive power had gone too far. The ability to govern and bypass Congress and the safeguards of the Constitution had gone too far, so they stepped in and they made some changes. Well, primarily the changes that they made was that when a president did that, it ran out every year and either had to renew it or come back and ask Congress to give him permission to continue. That’s basically it. Because as David said in the last segment, the ability of the president back then during 1933 to 1976, to confiscate property, consolidate and redirect production, private production and manufacturing, and direct it to wherever they want to direct it to, to a whole host of things still is in effect.

And I cited that in the second segment. There are about 150 laws like that, including property seizure and so forth that is still a part of when a president declares an emergency. For whatever reason, could be a healthy emergency like was done by Donald Trump under health, COVID, or done by a Joe Biden to proclaim that he was going to forgive all of the student debt or under Barack Obama. It’s done on both sides. That’s the point. Do not think that it is just Republican or Democrat. Now we wrap this thing up here because beyond formal emergency declarations that I just described, Washington routinely employs what I’m going to call creative structural workarounds that effectively suspend the Constitution in practical terms. Here’s one example. Congress has abandoned its core article one duty, Article one of the Constitution under the statement and account clause where that requires the budget to be done, choosing instead to fund the federal government through what perpetual, what they call continuing resolutions.

Heard that before? They’re just working on one now. That eliminate accountability because that’s what the failure to pass an actual budget does. There’s no statement and there’s no account clause that was talking about in the Constitution. And what’s it do? Well, it hides runaway spending. Now here’s some facts. Get this, Congress. Congress last passed all 12 required individual regular appropriations bill. Congress is required by law under this provisions of Article one, statement and account clause of the Constitution to pass 12 individual required appropriations bills on time before the start of the fiscal year. Well, when’s the last time that was done? 1996. Since 1996 until this very moment, 50 years, Congress has failed to meet the full statutory timeline outlined in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as required by law, which sets October 1st as a deadline for all 12 annual spending bills to be enacted into law.

It’s still not being done. Now here’s another one. At the same time, we see executive branch, primarily led by the president himself obviously, coercing co-equal branches. The US Supreme Court justices and members of Congress, calling them out by name, humiliating them publicly, threatening them, pressuring them, pressuring private industry and social media platforms to censor speech, or issuing vast regulatory mandates through administrative agencies. These things happen and they are happening as we speak. So when constitutional boundaries are routinely bypassed through procedural tricks and administrative muscle, self-governance is replaced by executive mandate. And maybe you can support it by saying it needs to be run by like a CEO, but not in a constitutional governance. David, when we look at that, as we just wrap it up here, how do we reach the point in this nation where the constitution, the protections it prescribes, and the little rule of law, which means the constitution can be set aside by people on both sides.

It’s not just one party. And they proceed as if it’s normal without freedom being impacted.

David New:

Well, I’ll tell you something. When I was born in March 1954, I had no idea that I was living in a government under a state of emergency. That we were just halfway through doing and living under that. This is one of the good things that came out of Watergate. There wasn’t very much good about it. But President Nixon, he had to resign on August 9th, 1974. I make no comments about whether that was right or not, whatever, to each his own. But this stuff came out in 1973 in November. They were already working hard to reduce Nixon’s power. And it was led by a very interesting senator, Senator Frank Church of Idaho. And I can’t remember a single time where any candidate for president, senator or Congress ever said, “We’ve got to reduce the national emergency powers of president.” It’s a sad situation. It’s a wonder this country is as free as it is today.

It’s a wonder. It’s only because of God.

Sam Rohrer:

David, I totally agree with that. It’s only by the grace of God. And I want to close the program. I’m actually going to have you to pray. David, close this program in prayer right now because these things we’ve talked about, they’re well entrenched. And only by the grace of God and the alertness of people who are listening to be aware, can freedom really continue. Close us in prayer, please, would you?

David New:

Dear Father, the name of Jesus, we approach thy throne of grace. We’re so grateful for thy blessed son, Jesus, and we pray for the forgiveness of our sins individually and as a nation. We pray for the forgiveness of our sin. And Father, we thank thee for our constitution and for our declaration of independence to guide us to govern ourselves as a free people, which is definitely the exception in the world. We thank thee for this constitution. We thank thee for our government. We pray for the United States of America. In Jesus’ name.

Sam Rohrer:

Amen and amen. And David, thank you so much for being back again here on the program. I think we have tackled a major issue today. Stated the facts. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we all get the implications from what is taking place. And so I pray for each of us, each of you listening, be salt, be light, know the truth, stand in the gap then for the truth. Lord willing, be back here tomorrow. If you can, Isaac Crockett will lead this program tomorrow with a special guest. And I think that you’ll be finding it very, very informative.