Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Hitler and Bush share hatred of paper

As reported by Capital Hill Blue, according to Bush, the Constitution -- the document which limits Presidential punishments to removal from office -- is only a piece of paper.

Perhaps this is good news.

Does the President wish the Constitutional protections he is granted, be ignored, leaving him to suffer a fate worse than removal from office?

* * *

Bush reported to have said to a group of RNC leaders: "I don't care about the Constitution -- it's just a piece of paper."

Gonzalez said it was "outdated".

* * *

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”Ref

* * *

The SF312 is the standard form used to document one's intention to comply with the non-disclosure of classified information.

There are several interesting clauses, of relevance to the President, which related to a simple theme:

  • The intent to be legally bound.

    If the President means what he says -- that the Constitution is just a scrap of paper -- we find little evidence to suggest he intends to be legally bound to something he views as a trifle -- the law.

    In turn, without an intent to comply or be legally bound, we question whether the SF-171 certification -- and other statements made under penalty of perjury -- were made without an intent to avoid or evade the statutes, thereby satisfying the intent element of perjury.

    The failure to demonstrate an intent to comply with the law remains, and has been, a basis for FBI agents to investigated and sign affidavits for a complaint and arrest warrant in re Pitts and Hansen.

    The issue isn't simply one of "knowledge by an RNC official" but to what extent, if any, the FBI has or has not done what it should do: Timely investigate

  • [a] the apparent problem with the SF-171; and

  • [b] the President's apparent intent not to adhere to the supreme law of the land, as he promised in his oath of office.

    We fail to see why the Department of Justice, hearing that three members of the RNC have heard the president say such a thing, would not exercise as much zeal in reviewing the matter as they have over alleged false statements in re Uranium and Yellow Cake in re Iraq and the WMD Issue.

    Perhaps our expectations are too high -- the unfavorable weather perhaps has chilled the FBI agent's ability to understand the rules of evidence, case law, or specific intent requirements.

    No matter, for they are ably led by capable US Attorneys who swear a similar oath. Or are we to believe that the oath is but a fluttering thing only applicable to those associated with espionage, but not to be compared to tyrants and alleged alcoholics?

    * * *

    The oath of office is not simply a promise; it is a standard of performance to measure whether the President has faithfully executed the laws in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

    Consider the referral in re Clinton:
    When he took the Oath of Office in 1993 and again in 1997, President Clinton swore that he would "faithfully execute the Office of President."(28) As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (29)

    * * *

    The people who heard him say this also have a duty: To protect the Constitution from someone who specifically stated they have no intention of preserving it.

    Manzullo [R-Il] shed some crocodile tears over Clinton's "violation of oath of office" in re impeachment. Where's he now?

    * * *

    The White House started a war based on non-sense.

    Here we have members of the Congress, people from the RNC, willing to state what happened in the Oval Office.

  • Why are people quick to embrace, "Whatever has been the fruit of torture, as the justification for war, even if it is false," but quickly ignore something that is not convenient?

    One cannot credibly claim they are worthy of leadership if they quickly embrace notions, without getting the source in re WMD; but then turn around and dismiss important information about the President from the RNC.


  • The RNC leadership is not reliable and falsely reporting information; Or

  • The RNC leadership has a lower threshold for going to war than it does for preserving the constitution; or

  • The reluctance to "review this claim" is wholly at odds with the illusory, fantasy, and manufactured reasons this government creates to justify intrusions and further destruction of the Constitution.

    Either way: If we are to believe that the "war in Iraq, based on illusory information" is just when preserving our way of life abroad; then so too must it be similarly argued that a just action -- impeachment -- has equal merit when preserving out way of life at home.

    * * *

    Consider Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:

    Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.Ref

    Surely, are we to believe that the Vice President, upon hearing that the President asserts the Constitution is but a trifle -- would be failing in his oath by not finding that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties?

    If one is not willing to recognize the Constitution -- one surely cannot be credibly expected to meet the standards of that document; nor reasonably expected to discharge the powers and duties of that office as described in the Constitution.

  • How can one capably perform duties relative to standards they view as "just a piece of paper"?

  • How does the RNC leadership explain the apparent failure to describe the President as "incapable" of performing the duties?

    We have no answers from the RNC, just as we have no credible plan for America or Iraq. Just more excuses.

    "Please, don't bother holding us to our oath of office, nor compel us to do something which the Constitution says must be done when the President fails to discharge his duties."

    * * *

    Recall the words of the impeachment against Andrew Jackson:

    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of officeRef

    It remains to be seen which specific acts are linked to Bush's alleged statements.

    * * *

    Bush has made, before more than two witnesses, statements that raise serious questions whether he is able to comply with his security-access agreement. in other words, we doubt he can justifiably show he can be trusted to preserve classified information; or that he can show he is not in violation of the security guidelines.

    Here is a sample oath, of questionable origin, but the statutes are noteworthy:

    I can be charged with the Federal Crime of "Perjury of Oath of Office", since I am presumed to have already taken an oath of office to protect rights secured under the above named Constitutions, as set forth under Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621, which carries a five year felony prison sentence and a $2,000.00 fine, under Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746, or both, and that I will be liable personally to the Accommodation Party for civil damages in the amount of one million dollars in silver coin for each count of said violation.Ref

    The following statutes appear to apply to Bush and those who know of his actions, statements in re his oath and security clearance:

    Perjury: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746, in re affecting commerce: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621

    Action for neglect to prevent: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1986 -- Applicable to those who know of, but fail to prevent violations of Civil Rights.

    * * *

    One takes an oath to preserve the Constitution.

    When that leader is no longer willing to preserve that document, they should be removed from office.

    A free citizenry, whose leadership refuses to hold a tyrant to the rule of law, should be given a green light: It is time to send a clear signal: There are consequences for failing to preserve the Constitution.

    * * *

    Even if we were to find no specific conduct violating the law -- which seems absurd given the growing body of evidence of war crimes, but put that aside -- how does the President justify continued access to classified information -- his words suggest he has no intent to be bound by any law.

    On that count alone, a man who has no ability to access classified information surely cannot service as President and Commander in Chief, roles which hinge on the access to, if not fabrication of, classified information.

    Or are we to believe that, as a buffoon in the jungle, the only way one might continue their able service is if he were to return to the jungle, alone, and far away from the idiosyncrasies of life?

    In his own words, the Constitution is but a scrap of paper; yet, if this is true, and we apply the clear punishment applicable to war criminals -- does this mean that the President, if convicted of having committed a war crime, would endorse his own death, vice a simple removal from office?

    Alas, the President appears to have become a security threat to himself -- apparently condoning lawful execution, if found guilty of war crimes.

    Are we to believe the President is sane; or simply mad with rage in his desire to acquire the sweet nectar of Adam's apple, as blessed by Eve, from the hanging gardens of Babylon?

    * * *

    Perhaps the Congress, is deference to this latest presidential proclamation that the Constitution is irrelevant and "just a piece of paper," may wish to review their document retention requirements.

    The American military has an oath to preserve the Constitution, from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

    What is to be said of the American military when it is given unlawful orders by a man that looks at that document as "just a piece of paper"?

    * * *

    It would appear the President would demand "due process" when it comes to issues of discussions he's had with his private counsel over issues of impeachment, war crimes, and obstruction of justice.

    If a law firms is a party to an agreement with a man who looks at the "binding structure of that agreement of confidentiality" as "just a piece of paper," one would think that that law firm is no longer bound by the terms of the lawyer-client confidentiality.

    One cannot reasonably expect a law firm, when it has a client which ignores the laws of the land, or has such disdain for the document to which the American Bar Association has signed, would feel it is bound by the promise of confidentiality.

    * * *

    It appears as though the President not only believes the Constitution is "just a piece of paper," but has no intention of honoring the agreements, and protections afforded to others.

    Thus, we conclude the President is no longer fit to govern; nor is any lawyer bound to any agreement of confidentiality.

    It is time to put the Constitution above the President; and to move the President under the rule of law.

    * * *

    We question whether the President is able to lawfully administer oaths to other people.

    All public servants take this oath.

    * * *

    The president has clearly spoken: He chooses tyranny, not simply with words and actions, but his spirit.

    How can this President claim he is acting "in the name of God," when he ignores the will of the document, from which he derives his power?

    * * *

    The President's disdain for the Constitution should be of no concern to the religious and faithful. Although the President may feel it is "in the interest of the Church" to have their files destroyed, and place of worship intruded, the young Christians and Jews should take solace that your Commander in Chief is doing this for your own good.

    He is a tyrant. His own words say enough. Yet, this nation requires further evidence.

    It continues to unfold. Simply open your eyes.

    What is your choice: A tyrant who has disdain for the only document protecting your rights, and the last shield to the tyranny of lawless power?

    Or will you dare to stand with those who wish to assert the rule of law.

    You must choose: Tyranny or the Constitution.

    If you choose tyranny, rest assured you shall be defeated.

    You shall join the ranks of the CIA's directorate of operations, and remain fearful of your future mortgages; ever wondering when the civilian population, emboldened with confidence, will dare to force you to choose between the rule of law or tyranny.

    * * *

    All government and public officials take an oath to preserve this document.

    Your commander and President has shown he is a threat -- he has no regard to the very document from which he used as the fruit for his solemn oath with Chief Justice Rehnquist.

    In dying health, the Chief Justice said the words from the Constitution, and the president recited them: He made a solemn oath.

    His words mean nothing.

    * * *

    Now we know the President's words, as his claims about freedom and WMD, are simply that -- words, without an intent to preserve or protect them.

    American citizens must choose: Are you willing to join the ranks of those who are willing to stand for the Constitution; or are you willing to join the ranks of those who are led by a man who has no regard for the Constitution.

    The allies of the Constitution have survived and prevailed for centuries. They date back to the ancient lands of Europe. There is a vast network of able minded and capable warriors whose solemn oath is to the principles, not simply the document, which are in the spirit of the Constitution.

    When these warriors hear of the disdain this President has for those principles, in them will awaken the call of the ancients: "It is time to stand and protect the Constitution, its principles."

    Around the globe they stand ready.

    Many may perish, but in the end the Constitution shall prevail.

    You must choose.