Constant's pations

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

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Constitutional Convention: Recalibrating the Federal Government to the Constitution

The States need to act. This Congress has failed to assert its oath.

The Presidente and Joint Staff remain in rebellion.

The way forward is to recalibrate the Federal Government, and for the States to compel this recalibration to occur.

Congress has two weeks to address this issue. Then the States will issue proclomations calling for action to lawfully remove this President from office. He remains a threat to this Constitution; any threat to dissuade lawful action to preserve this Constitution is not lawful and should be rebuked by the States.

* * *

[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]

* * *

The problem is there is not calibration system. The states need to by ¾ vote choose a special calibrator who will quickly review the existing system, and forward their plan for the State Ratification.

This plan would form the basis to recalibrate the system. At no time would this calibration trump the Constitution, but the contrary. The Calibration would ensure the system as it exists is consistent with the Constitution.

* * *

Congress has an important job to do: Lawfully removing the President. It remains to be understood why there are not rules prohibiting anyone from interfering with Congress or their votes. It remains to be understood which statutes would impose sanctions on Rove for making any threat against the Congress for them not to do what must be done: Break ranks with the President’s rebellion against the Constitution; and lawfully remove the President because he remains unfit for office.

* * *

The Congress has a problem: It has a 1 March 2006 deadline for three things:

  • 1. An impeachment

  • 2. A list of plans to subdue this rebellion

  • 3. Provide a mechanism to recalibrate this system.

    It looks like Congress is going to miss the deadline, so let’s proceed.

    The problem Congress has is that its leadership is loyal not to the Constitution – as it should be – but to the Party. The calibration needs to remove anything that permits anything to trump the Constitution.

    It really doesn’t matter why things are messed up – although that needs to be understood. What is unclear is why the balancing mechanism has failed, and the courts have no role in injecting itself when Congress and the Executive have let things go adrift. Ideally, there needs to be some sort of triggering mechanism that will permit the Judicial Branch to compel the Executive and Congress to rebalance the scale. But Congress has sought to defer this responsibility to no one, so it doesn’t get done.

    I expect a calibration mechanism. I do not care whether the Congress agrees that this must be done; or that the Federal government gets around to it. Rather, the states need to lead this effort, and compel the Federal government to recalibrate.

    We’ve seen some half hearted attempts, which have largely amounted to window dressing and whitewashes. Let’s consider Spike Bowman’s visit to Guantanamo. Ideally, this should have solved things; yet, here we are in 2006 finding that the problem is pervasive.

    What’s needed is something that looks at the system in a generic sense, and lays down the no kidding assessment: This is how far things have drifted from the Constitution.

    Let’s consider a simple issue – that’s actually quite serious – the US and UK agreed to go into Iraq despite no evidence, and in defiance of the UN. What’s the agreement with Iran? The issue is to review what failed with Iraq, and make adverse judgments, then fix what has broken. Congress does not seem interested, much less aware.

    For Congress to do its job, it has to be free fro threats or intimidation. It’s clear something is not right. What explains why Congress does not act on the self-evident violations of the law? We can reasonably speculate that the NSA analysts are threatened over issues of the UCMJ, rules, non compliance, and Article II Section 3. The other abuses include Plame and threats against non official status teachers. Whatever the problem is, the results are clear: The public has no confidence the system will comply with the law, and the President shows no inclination to assert his Article II Section 3 obligation to enforce the laws. Inherent authority has inherent responsibilities.

    Let’s consider another example: The WMD evidence – or lack thereof. Cheney is linked to Libby in “authorizing” violations of the law – disclosure of classified information – as unlawful retaliation for saying what is obvious: The war in Iraq is devoid of legal foundation, facts and is a war crime. Clearly, the orders to violate the law are illegal, and Libby and the Joint staff cannot claim a mistaken belief that they must obey them. This is no defense. This is recognized as a precedent from Nuremburg.

    The problem Congress has is that this pattern of conduct – by Libby, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, and the rest of the crew – is contrary to the Constitution. Self-evidently we have the NSA unlawful activity. The many months of investigation will find that the pattern of conduct is not isolated to the White House, NSA, DoD, or DoJ. Rather, the purpose of the review should be to simply recalibrate the system and fix it. It is self-evidently broken. But Congress is unwilling to assert its oaths. That is another matter, and deserves a review.

    Roves’ problem is that despite being under investigation, he’s still issuing threats. The recalibration needs to fix this: Once someone is no longer trustworthy, they should not have their comments taken seriously; and all subsequent comments or threats against Congress should face increase sanctions. It needs to be clear to all that any threat communicated to assent to a Presidential rebellion or unconstitutional conduct is illegal; and the order to assent to, remain silent, condone, or support this unlawful conduct is a subsequent violation.

    Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure rules prohibiting threats related to issue of impeachment and removal are not privileged; and conversely the Congress needs to be rewarded for going to the well of each chamber and publicly admonishing those who make threats to stifle lawful oversight.

    These threats are not consistent with rules barring interference with Juries. The calibration needs to ensure that the Senate is protected from threats just as any Jury pool. Regardless the history and precedent from the United Kingdom, the way forward is to make it clear in no uncertain terms that unlawful conduct will not continue simply because there is additional threats to avoid taking action on impeachment and removal.

    It’s clear Rove’s statements are designed to influence the Senate and House for one goal: To unlawfully intimidate them from asserting their oaths, and lawfully removing from office an Executive who has shown no interest in faithfully executive the law.

    By way of example, the UCMJ is a public statute. The President through Article II Section 3 is responsible for ensuring this is enforced. Article 837 is clear: The process of a proceeding cannot be interfered with – no coercion, influence, interference, dissuading action, or statements to affect this.

    The calibration needs to find out why Congress has not made a similar rule related to impeachment; and mandate that there be a rule in place so the needed mechanism is in place. Congress is not interested in preserving the integrity of this impeachment function. The States are ready to impose discipline.

    * * *

    Congress has one simple problem: It has no visible advocate whose sole job it is to advocate for the Constitution. All Congressional statements are linked to secondary issues related to politics, votes, and legislation. Curious, the oath isn’t to the party, but to the document; yet, we find little evidence this oath translates into any priority for the Constitution.

    Bluntly, the three branches need a wakeup call fro the States in the form of a Constitutional Convention: Either the Federal government solves this, or the States will. This will be solved. Clearly, Congress does not have the staff, rules, inclination, or leadership to rise to the occasion. They have two weeks to fix this. The remainder of this document is designed to do one thing: Drive this point home, outline how simple a problem this is to solve, and show that neither congress or the Executive are competent to address this problem. The states are, and this is how it can be done.

    You get to decide: Do you want the Federal government to spew forth non-sense; or do you want to use this plan, and start action on 1 March 2006, in two weeks.

    * * *

    The states need to establish a mechanism to assign this task and be clear:

  • Who’s getting the way of getting this done;

  • What threats are being made

  • Who’s not doing their job

    Forget the issues of RNC-DNC and party. The issue is: Who in Congress isn’t doing their job to oversee this process: The mechanism to recalibrate the entrenched White House disregard for the law.

    We might speculate that there’s a problem with the legal community. This need not be questioned. It is certain. The legal community, as have Congress has failed. They too have a duty and oath to the Constitution; but the legal community is silent. They too have two weeks.

    The statutes are problematic. There is no specific direction to Congress on duties, obligations, and lines of inquiry needed to evaluate on an ongoing basis what is to be done when the Executive does what he continues to do: Violate the law.

    There needs to be a clear set of statutes which firmly attach sanctions for filing to follow, specific directions for Congress to follow for

  • A. Reviews

  • B. Oversight

  • C. Assessing reports

  • D. Issuing findings

  • E. Engaging in monitoring

    Congress approaches all issues as if they were a new problem. Yet, there’s no adequate review whether the evidence related to that legislation is vetted. Rather, relying on legislative immunity, Congress relies on hearings – legislation by abrasion – to fine tune what is self-evidently a problem: WMD data didn’t exist, yet this Congress voted for war, and kept rubber stamping funding well after this fact is known.

    This is not a new problem. The legal community isn’t addressing this issue. There is no plan. You have two weeks.

    The issue is to attach meaningful sanctions to the oath, and clear liability for malfeasance when the oath – and promise to protect the Constitution – is ignored. The States need to remove the phony “legislative immunity”-defense, and ensure the Congress asserts the law, not simply goes along on the Executive’s escalator to fascism.

    Congress needs to apply statutes and rules to itself not for purposes of self-beating, but to ensure lessons learned are applied from an institutional perspective. At this point, the approach is haphazard, and linked solely to issues and budget. Lost is the institutional requirement – and needed rules and enforceable standards – that makes the Constitution the number one priority.

    There’s no merit that Congress “can’t make rules and apply statutes to itself.” Rather, the issue is why the Executive Believe only it can write rules through the “Administrative rule making process” but Congress cannot exercise the same discretion. The calibration system needs to make it clear that the Executive rule making power attaches with it a Congressional rule making responsibility to both oversee those rules, and ensure Congress has an equally entrenched set of rules maintaining focus on the Constitution.

    Congress needs to pass lass that impose standards, sanctions, and performance expectations on Congress to meet; and may lawfully subject Congressional staff for removal when they violate these laws and performance expectations. However one arrives at the outcome, the issue is clear: The current oath Congress takes is meaningless – there is nothing in writing that says how Congress is or is not to assert itself when the President – as he has done – violates the law, and Congress assents to that. There needs to be a formalized system to assert Congressional power at all times, and lawfully expose the Executive misconduct at all times without fear.

    * * * *

    Perhaps the issue is enforcement and the statutes are there. Brilliant, then if that is true we shouldn’t have the problem: No Congressional leadership to assert the rule of law over the wayward, rebellions President. Either the rules exist and they are not enforced or followed; or the rules do not exist. It doesn’t matter whether this is an enforcement issue or a promulgation issue: The states and citizens see the mechanism is not there as it should be.

    There need to be clear statutes which Congress has to follow that mandates that Article 1 Section 8 is asserted; and when there are failures to assert that against the President, there need to be some catalysts and sanctions, otherwise the oath is meaningless.

    The calibration system needs to clearly identify those laws which need to be applied or created that will Compel Congress to assert its oath, do its duty, and mandate that action be linked with a lawful requirement in terms of laws, standards, and mandatory conduct: SHALL.

    Broadly, this calibration system needs to look broadly at the Executive Abuses and encroachments on Article 1 Section 8, and identify which laws have been ignored; which mechanism in Congress was ignored, or needs to be created; identify the specific solution to this self-evident non-existent oversight system; and be clear with what Congress must do – through threat of jail time if not asserted – if Congress is to assert its oath and actually do to check the Executive. Whatever “should be in place” or “is actually in place” is self-evidently not working.

    * * *

    Two weeks is quite a bit of time. You’ll have the opportunity to review what’s gone on under your watch – in Congress – over issues related to rendition, Eastern Europe, unlawful torture, and the unlawful war in Iraq. Your job in Congress will be to clarify the issues, clarify powers, and identify what must be done to remedy the flaws and imbalances. Your job is to compel compliance with this system and recalibration.

    Obviously, two more weeks is more than you need. This should have already been done: It’s your job to do this.

    The states have a far easier task. They’ve had since 2000 to watch the Federal Government fail. The solution is clear: Calibration. And the rest of this will explain in detail how this is to be done, and what the States have the option to force the Congress to do if you choose to not assert your oath. Your deadline is two weeks.

    This paper will outline today what Congress has two more weeks to do. You’re welcome in that you have two extra weeks to put together a plan. This team – and the States – are ready. Congress is not.

    * * *

    For those of you who are lost, Congress has a major credibly problem right now. They teak oaths to protect this document, but the self-evident disaster – that they have created through malfeasance – lands squarely on their feet.

    The issue all voters need to ask is: Who do you trust to do this: The states, or the Congress. Congress is part of the problem, they take oaths, and they don’t do their jobs. The states, meanwhile have the power to compel a recalibration.

    The recalibration is easy and simple. It simply redraws the lines of power to ensure the conduct and rules are constitutional. The courts rely on self-reporting by either Congress or the Executive or a victim to do this. This is a failed way to ensure the Constitution is preserved, or that Article IV Section 4 requirements are met. Thanks to the lazy legal community, the States have had to endure the self-evident disaster and the Congressional excuses.

    Two weeks to fix this problem, oversee the reforms, changes, and close this out. Congress is not up to the task. This paper outlines how this can be done immediately. Choose: You want excuses from Congress, or you want something the States are ready to work with. Two weeks. That’s it.

    * * *

    Let’s give you an example of this problem. Congress wrote the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. This is part of the US Code. All Congressional representatives take an oath to protect the constitution, and ensure the system is preserved.

    The existing laws say that the President has to follow the UCMJ requirements when establishing tribunals. The issue Congress cannot answer is: How did this White House-Guantanamo trial process get approved by Congress?

    Congress has the power to make rules; and the UCMJ is clear on what constitutes a lawful change to procedures. The President in the UCMJ is clearly told what he can and cannot do. Congress has no clue what to do. The states have a plan.

    The general principle is that there are very specific rules against what the President is doing. The White House trashed the opposition in the Executive branch, and Congress has not inquired. What’s happened is the President’s rebellion against the Constitution spread, and the laws of the land were secondary. That’s not Constitutional, but no thanks to Congress we have what we have: A Congressional legitimacy problem assenting unlawfully to Executive Branch encroachments. They have no plan. The states do.

    The way forward is to show the voters how the UCMJ in Guantanamo was ignored; and why a reasonable person would not be surprised why the NSA ignored the same UCMJ when it worked domestically. There were clear rules, explained away, not enforced, and no follow up by Congress to look at the broader picture and pattern. They have two weeks, but this will explain what needs to be done in a few short minutes.

    * * *

    The recalibration system is simple. It simply reviews the procedures, constitutional requirements, unconstitutional conduct, and creates a solution to start fresh. It doesn’t ignore the Constitution. Rather it simply reasserts the Constitution, and ensures everything going on is adjusted to fall where it should be. Two weeks. NSA and the Joint Staff have secure communication lines that they can immediately order all executive branch personnel to get into line. This can be done within seconds. Where’s their “big plan”? They have none. The States have a plan to fix this leadership problem, and failure to use NSA communication to ensure the Executive branch assents the rule of law.

    The Constitutional Convention shall appoint a special master who will oversee all three branches during this recalibration. The goal is simple: Remain in place, fully charged and empowered by the states to mandate that the Executive branch use the NSA communication system and assent to the rule of law. Failure to comply will result in lawful removal from office for failing to protect the Constitution and being in rebellion, with sanctions outlined in the 14th Amendment.

    The way forward is to get the States to agree the options needed to compel the Congress and Executive Branch staff to lawfully remove and distance themselves from this unlawful Presidential rebellion against the Constitution.

    The states can through a Constitutional Convention lawfully mandate that a special master order Congress and the President to come into compliance with the Constitution upon receipt of the NSA message – and all conduct after 1 March 2006 contrary to the Constitution will be grounds for legal proceedings. That’s two weeks. It only takes a few short minutes to send a Joint Staff message through the NSA to all commanders to immediately order this action. Take your pick: Two weeks versus minutes.

    What’s needed is a clear review of the matters in terms of [a] inaction; [b] rebellion and [c] the failure to assert power as the Congress has required.

    * * *

    Congress has had over 200 years to wrestle with this. They have not asked the states to help. They have two weeks to address this issue. The states are ready to move.

    Clearly, the Congress is so over its head, it has no clue what to do. The problem is clear: Congress has no clue.

    If individual Congressional staffers or legislators have no idea what to do; or you are not allowed to do you job, then your job is to let someone know, ask for help, or resign. You are not forced to assent to this rebellion – but you choose to do so.

    Back to basics. The constitution is your reason for being there. Follow it, assert it, it is your job. Nobody seems to know what to do. For more than 200 years, Congress has wandered in the wilderness, oblivious, and now they have two weeks to come up with a notion of what is to be done. Why will waiting more than two weeks make a difference? Two hundred years has given us what we have: A congress that is lost.

    Congress’ problem is that it assents to non-sense, and believes all Constitutional issues and statutes are up for debate. Wrong! Once the Constitution was passed, that’s the starting point. But this Congress has bought the Executive Fiction and asked – rather blindly expected – to be reminded of what their job is by [wait for it] the Executive.

    It’s time for Congress to have some clear procedures. The Constitution is not up for debate. And it is irrelevant that the DoJ and White House “could not agree” on whether the NSA unlawful programs were or were not illegal. Once the illegal conduct is known, all program funding for that activity should automatically end without debate; it is not a subject of debate whether unlawful conduct can or cannot be funded. Rather, the real issue is why despite well known illegal conduct, Congress continues rubber stamping legislation – it should be illegal to discuss violating the Constitution; or passing legislation that destroys the Constitution. This notion of “legislative immunity’ is not a blank check to assent to Executive Tyranny. Rather, it should be a requirement – with a sanction for failing to assert the oath – over issues where the Executive has asserted power that he or she does not have. Congress has no plan to do that; the States can compel Congress. Two weeks.

    * * *

    Let’s think in general terms. Congress has an oath of office. There needs to be criminal liability if the Congress fails to check Presidential power. If the Executive cross the line, there should be a legal duty on Congress to push back, and resolve the issue. This should be automatic, not something that is debated, contemplated, or subject to threats by Rove. Further, any effort to stifle the Congress from asserting powers and checking the Executive should be unconstitutional, illegal, and subject to swift and meaningful sanction. You shall not do that. Ever. If you do, you are in rebellion, subject to the 14th Amendment Sanctions, and will lose all ability to hold any office because of your violation of your oath and duty to protect the Constitution.

    The specific example is simple. The President unlawfully asserts he has Article 1 Section 8 powers to write rules about rendition, juries, and transfer of prisoners. This is fiction. Only Congress has this power; yet there is nothing done despite this defiance. We only have Congress assenting to Rove’s threats. Clearly, Congress is Rove’s poodle. But the States have a clear plan, unlike Congress.

    The problem is simple: The Congress has no plan to lawfully assert power, punish the President for violating the law, and admit there is widespread Congressional malfeasance for failing to assert their oath. Congress is in la-la land. The States are clear on the problem.

    How we got here doesn’t really matter. But for those of you who like history lessons – and have been comatose for the last 5 years, the issue is DoD violated the UCMJ overseas in Iraq, and now does the same with the NSA. The Joint Staff and NSA have joined the President in rebellion.

    The issue is simple: The military has crossed the line, entered politics, and the nation has assented to their military coup. Not only is the President in rebellion, but the UCMJ bans on meddling in politics is not something Congress wants to enforce, as it failed to act with UCMJ violations in Guantanamo and the NSA unlawful activity.

    The problem is simple: The Joint Staff looks at US citizens as being subject to their orders, and the Joint Staff believes they can spew forth propaganda to induce the public to assent to their lawlessness. There are two problems. First, the Joint Staff actually assumes the public will assent to this non-sense; and second, the Joint Staff belies they can commit violations of the UCMJ without sanction.

    Again, the issue is that the Congress took an oath to preserve the Constitution, not sit idly while the Joint Staff and President picks and chooses from which half of the UCMJ they want to assert, or ignore. Where there is authority and discretion, there is also responsibility. This Joint Staff and President assert authority, without honoring their oath to exercise responsibility and ensure the laws are followed. We have illegal war, illegal abuse, and illegal domestic spying. This is a problem for the Joint Staff – and the Congress has the power to lawfully remove those in rebellion. This Congress chooses to join this Rebellion. It is time for the States to act.

    * * *

    The White House and Joint Staff strategy is simple. They simply exhaust the Congressional staff with non-sense. Think in general terms. Notice all the non-sense coming out of the White House, NSA, Joint Staff, and DoJ over the NSA issue. This was the kind of non-sense that internal NSA and DoJ staffers had to put up with, under threat of losing their jobs if they resisted.

    The States now know who the enemies of the Constitution are: The President, Congress, Joint Staff, DoJ, DoD, and NSA. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s be clear with what Congress is doing to further not solve the problem. Sensenbrenner – in apparent full coordination with the Executive – has issued fifty-one [51] non-sense questions. This is not serious.

    The problem is the US still has laws on the books in all areas related to these violations. The problem is simple: Unlike Iraq and Guantanamo where the abuses – violations of the UCMJ, and laws -- occurred “far away,” the NSA activity is close at home. For those who missed the issue: Guantanamo is 90 miles from Florida; Los Angeles – the site of the “big scary story” in 2002 is 3000 miles from DC. Congress took no interest in a matter 90 miles from Florida, but was “really concerned” when the issue was 3,000 miles away. Get real.

    The issue is clear. The US government – specifically this President and Joint Staff – got into the bad habit – which Congress assented to unlawfully – of ignoring the US laws in Guantanamo and Iraq and “doing what it wants. Presto! NSA continued domestically. The same non-sense DoD used to justify “ignoring investigating the UCMJ violations with abuse” is what drove the NSA and Congress to do the same with the NSA programs they well knew about, had doubts about. This is a failure of Congress to ensure that the laws were followed, that they were given the information – as required by statute – to ensure the UCMJ was fully asserted to ensure that the NSA, DoD, and Joint Staff operations were consistent with US laws.

    The failure isn’t simply one that the Congress can point to. Congress needs to accept that it has a problem with failing to ensure there is a system in place to compel Congress to take action. There is no system. If there is one, we self-evidently have had six years of non-sense, violations, and no Congressional action. Either way, there is no credible basis to believe the US has a system of checks and balances. It is no different than the Wall Street game of wink-wink that goes on between the auditors, CEOs and complicit board of directors who are inept, and incapable of evaluating whether an audit is or is not consistent with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. Congress is no different: It cannot tell you what Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standard are, nor explain why this many violations of the law “just appeared” despite the long trail of evidence related to malfeasance. This Congress has failed not in general, but all 535 of them have not lived up to their legal obligations to assert their oath before their duty to the Party. They would rather roll over, belly to Rove, and kick their legs in the air pretending they are doing their job. Can you say dog pound?

    * * *

    Keep in mind where we’re going. Despite failing for 200 years to address this issue, Congress complains it “needs more time.” No! The game is over. They’ve freely taken oaths, and have no solution. They want “more time” to bury this. State proclamations cannot be buried.

    The US approach – as is this Congress – is to create a mess, and then use that mess as an excuse to make a bigger mess. Consider the issue with Iran. Some argue the Iranians “can’t have nukes” because they are for terrorism, a threat to oil, and are spreading instability.

    Let me say that again: Iran – which does not have a nuclear weapons program, and the CIA, NSA know this – is argued to be for terrorism, a threat to oil, and spreading instability; therefore, Iran – which has no nuclear weapons program, which the White House, State Department, Joint Staff, and NSA know – is argued to be “worthy” of sanctions.

    Let me say that another way: The very “basis” to deny Iran from “doing something” – that it is not doing – is the very conduct the US – and this Congress – engages in: State sponsored terrorism, violations of the laws of war, threatens the oil fields in Iraq, and spreads instability in Iraq.

    Look at the results in Iraq: Congress knew on the ever of war the evidence was thin for WMD; despite confirmation by Wilson, Ritter, and the self-evident “failure to find WMD’ – this Congress still spends money for an illegal war. That, in itself, should be a war crime. There’s no excuse.

    Nuremberg did not apply existing laws. Nuremburg created new legal standards and applied those. The same should apply to Congress.

    Where is there any excuse for Congress – despite the well known problems with Iraq – to blindly spend money for this illegal action; and at the same time pretend Iraq didn’t occur and do the same with Iran. That is not a question. The burden on Congress is to come up with a good defense – despite the platitude of “legislative immunity” – why they are not complicit in these war crimes.

    No matter, we can only expect Congress to give excuses. The states need to address this issue: How the US Congress can go along with this non-sense, act as if it has no accountability, and continue with non-sense, accusations, and fail to look at the mirror. The recalibration will do this.

    * * *

    The problem with bad habits started to take off in 2000. DoD as is Congress jumped down the slippery slope. Mud is everywhere. Both DoD and the Congress enjoy throwing mud – it distract attention from their failure to honor their oaths.

    These are bad habits. Congress has failed. It remains to be understood which Congressional committee has the duty, obligation, tasks, requirement, or “big adventure” of compelling DoD to assent to the UCMJ over issues with the NSA.

    Again, Congress did nothing about this “big problem in the Joint Staff” because the problems were only 90 miles away in Guantanamo. Had the problem been closer like 3,000 miles in Los Angles, well that would’ve made a big different.

    The point is simple. Congress under Article 1 Section 8 has the power and obligation to make sure that all US persons serving in the interests of the US and working in US felicities – as is Cuba and Eastern European detention centers and Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan – follow the UCMJ. The UCMJ is the law. The President’s oath is to ensure that the UCMJ is followed, enforced, and that violations of the UCMJ – even by the Joint Staff – are dealt with.

    But this Congress failed. The States are ready. They can do something Congress cannot do: They can read the UCMJ and see where Congress and the Joint Staff have joined the President in this rebellion.

    * * *

    Before we give Congress the needed spotlight – to fail again – let’s be clear: There are many “experts” running around who offer one thing: Non-sense. They have no solution.

    This is a personal failure of the United Sates Senior Executive service, contractors, advisors, consultants, legal community, and Congress.

    All that money lobbyists spent on Golfing Trips to Scotland: Did they bother to discuss the failed system of checks and balances or a solution? Clearly, they have given us nothing.

    So where’s the “big plan” after 200 years of this nonsense? [Echo, echo, echo]

    These people took an oath, and put the flag before the Constitution. We need a pledge of allegations to the United States Constitution, so help us all.

    * * *

    Congress can only offer excuses. But ask yourself, given this obvious disaster – self-evident to even the most inept citizen who may have a problem understanding that talk radio is not necessarily news – what is to be done?

    First of all, think back to the oath. It is clear. It is to a document. Now contrast that which what we have: Violations of the law, no plan, excuses, and plenty of drooling. Think back to the days when this started happening.

    Now, put yourself in the position of a member of congress or staffer or anyone else who took an oath. Think only about your oath and how you are thinking when you see this mess before you. Keep that in mind, hold it. Now consider the following questions:

  • A. How do these people mentally process this dilemma;

  • B. Why isn’t Congress resigning and walking away;

  • C. How much money have they been paid to be a robot;

  • D. How can they justify getting paid, going to work?

  • E. How does Congress go to work each day, sleep at night knowing they do nothing to assert Article 1 Section 8 or their oath?

  • F. How can they stay in Congress knowing what they do has nothing to assert their oath or Article 1 Section?

    Just let that sink in for a moment. If your job is to protect the constitution and you have an oath – how do you reconcile your job, with what you see each day? It’s as if this Congress when it walks up the steps and through the door, turns off its brain and goes into robot mode. Who needs robots? We need a Constitution, and people who are willing to assert their oath. Not this crew. But the states have a plan.

    The issue is simple: It’s as if the entire federal government threw the Constitution and oaths out the window and did nothing. They have an obvious mess before them – that they helped create through malfeasance – and there is no plan or prospect that Congress will on its own recalibrate or ensure there is a compliance mechanism in place.

    Its as if we’re standing over a process to re-invent the wheel, but the Congress can’t seem to get that simple design. Everything else falls apart.

    But this cluelessness isn’t isolated to simple matters like oaths and the constitution – which they supposedly read at some point and freely took an oath and signed their name – now, the issue is about the detailed rules that are supposed to be consistent with the constitution, and then followed, enforced, and remedied if there are violations.

    This crew is clueless on oversight, enforcement, standards, compliance, and the rule of law. It’s as if the executive window dressing – distractions from the violations of the law – are to be debated while the source of that inherent authority is destroyed. But they took an oath to assert the laws, preserve the Constitution, and ensure that the inherent responsibilities were affirmed not explained away as a partisan issue.

    I fail to see how Congress can go to work each day with this mess and no have a dilemma. But how do they resolve this dilemma? Well, they ignore the public, they do not listen, they are rude, and the staffers go out of their way to make excuses. “Oh, it’s so complicated.” No, it’s easy: The oath.

    The States have a plan. Congress has nothing but excuses.

    * * *

    Oh, but for those of you who have missed it: The key question is How can Congress agree or assent to be silent about violations of the law?

    Out of that question comes another line of questions which the States are equally capable of debating in two weeks:

  • A. What duty of review does Congress have to ensure information is complete, accurate, and worth of consideration before assenting to war crimes?

  • B. Why is “incomplete information” sufficient for Congress to assent to war crimes?

  • C. What else is Congress “not fully informed on”

  • D. How many other briefings has Congress been given that are meaningless?

  • E. Given the self-evident problem with unlawful presented information – but continued Congressional assent to lawlessness – what are alterative sources of information?

    Maybe you think I’m talking about WMD. I’m actually taking about the general idea of DoD misconduct, and these questions also apply to the NSA and the other DoD actions.

    Supposedly Congress reviews information. Supposedly, after they review this, they test it. This is clearly not done. Cases in point: The denials about Guantanamo, war crimes in Iraq, and the non-sense information over the WMD issue.

    The point is that congress is part of the conspiracy. They have freely chosen to endorse this rubber stamping, and the states need to devise a mechanism to attach criminal liability when Congress continues to assent to violations of the law, international treaties, and other high crimes warranting removal from office. That a particular party may be inconvenienced by facts is the very purpose for having statutes that require truthful communications to congress.
    Yet, its been four years since the 2002 bombings in Iraq; and three years since the false WMD information presented to the War in Iraq – but what has Congress done? Simply reauthorized DoD war crimes.

    The States need to devise a system that ends this. The problem is simple: If the States assent to this budget drain – and commitment of US resources for unlawful purposes – the states lose the right to expect to be free from lawful retaliation for these war crimes. Rather, the States are assenting to conduct that would jeopardize the very protection they are afforded under Article IV Section 4 – that of protecting a Constitutional system.

    The duty on the states is merely out of self-interest and has nothing to do with any fondness for Congress or the Constitution. Rather, the States need to join forces and compel this Congress to assert the constitution, otherwise the states are at risk of being left with more of what we have: A sham system.

    * * *

    I expect the leadership to do a page review of the statutes. The leadership needs to ensure the statutes are consistent with the Constitution; and that the action related to that statute is consistent with congressional intent. This is not something that the courts should do only on matters of abrasion or dispute; but an ongoing matter of review to contrast [a] the rules; [b] Constitution, and [c] the actual conduct.

    The plan to solve this issue is simple. The States needs to order to Congress to assert their oaths; and stand down all DoD forces that are in rebellion against the constitution. A simple message from the Joint Staff reminding all of the 5100.77 obligations, and their oaths, combined with a commander’s conformation that he has carried out this review, under penalty of perjury will start this process.

    Then we start the random sampling. This means direct entry into any and all Executive Branches to test whether this assertion under penalty of perjury is true. All the findings go to the US Attorney.

    Some in the Executive Say that this is interfering. Welcome to reality: The system of checks and balances is designed to annoy, interfere, and obstruct. But in 2006, this is especially appropriate because this Joint Staff and Congress have seen it fit to ignore the laws of the land, fail to review, and continue to engage in war crimes. They are the problem. The States have the solution.

    The problem is for the Joint Staff and Congress to resolve: How can we justify going to work everyday knowing we have no plan to resolve this issue; and that the Article 1 section 8 powers are not lawfully exercised. Please, you may run to the White House counsel’s office, talk to Lady Elaine, who will give you more non-sense why you need not worry, “My pretty.”

    How do you in Congress and the Joint Staff go to work each day knowing this system is broken, and you do nothing to fix it?

  • Is there a code of silence and secrecy to say nothing? Surely, you must be fooling yourself if you think nobody notices reality – those most naïve, foolish, and non-sensical among us can clearly see what is self-evident: You have failed in asserting your oath; you cannot be trusted; and you continue to get paid large sums of money to pretend that you’re doing something related to protecting the constitution. You have failed and the States are ready.

  • IS Congress threatened with loss of employment if they say what is self-evident– like a teacher who was denied tenure for talking about facts: The number of US troops killed in Iraq?

    * * *

    The States have the power to compel there be a single voice advocating on behalf of the constitution. “This is the constitution – do you job.”

    Where is this advocate? Indeed, we were once led to believe that by taking your oath, each and every one of you were this advocate. But the results are self-evidently abysmal. You defy belief.

    There is no credible advocate for the constitution. The States can mandate there be one, simply because it is the right thing to do – but mostly because this self-evident requirement is devoid of any barrier to its existence. The States can compel the nation and government to defend, protect, and preserve this Constitution with a calibration process and an ongoing advocate who is not loyal to any government, party, branch, or state: Simply one obligation and loyalty—to the Constitution. Nothing more.

    There needs to be a lawful leaders of the Congressional Constitutional authority who has no loyalty to any party, government, or branch; whose only loyalty is to the Constitution. That person is well within the scope of the States lawfully appointing and giving the full force to recalibrate when needed, as is the case. Again, they are not doing anything that should not be done – rather, they are the simple mechanism to compel Congress to face what they have failed to do.

    The media is useless in this role, so we need not waste another breath on this cess pool. Thank you Judith Miller.

    The problem is simple. Congress has no clue what to do when its faced with the following conditions we self-evidently have:

  • A wayward executive in rebellion against the Constitution

  • Joint Staff and congressional assent to that rebellion

  • Violations of the law

  • Congress unwilling to assert its power

  • Congress unable to figure out what to do

    The answer is simple. Congress should be compelled to consult with the states and discuss this issue. Each member of Congress should sit in the well of their state legislature while their State debate the issue: Is this member of congress going to do their job or not? If you are, come back and do what must be done to recalibrate this system; if you return with the goal of rebellion, don’t bother.

    * * *

    The idea of the Founding fathers in protecting the media is so that it becomes a tool to educate, inspire, and breath life into the Constitution. Yes, there are agendas of factions; but the threat of a faction should have been the wake up call to what is self-evident: The destruction of the system of oversight and checks.

    This nation – as evidenced by the congress and media – has a lesser goal of doing things “other than the oath.” This nation chases budgets, issues, not the rule of law and order. That is backwards. And the media does not understand much less have a solution for this problem.

    The issue to be understood and debated is how does this system get so screwed up and Congress is silent on the article 1 Section 8 violations.

    Clearly, we have pervasive non-assertion of the oaths of office without fear of consequences that anyone will find out or do anything. That in itself is a problem which warrants meaningful sanctions and attachments: What is to be done to do something that will compel the takers of the oath to actually feel in their soul a need to do something; a feeling that “Yes, I ought to do what ought to be done.”

    Arise! The day is new. It is time to read your oath, and read your Constitution. Again! There is no higher purpose. This calibration and the states should compel the Congress and Executive and Judicial Branch to hand-write the Constitution – 10 times – long hand, and then recertify their oaths. Yes, it will hurt – just as you have hurt the fine citizens who trusted you to do what must be done. These citizens are the ones who cry at night now thinking of this mess and how you have failed. They are in despair. The least you could do is suffer some inconvenience of showing you pay attention to the document you swear an oath. But for many of you that is far too complicated. You have two weeks, then the states will act. They are ready.

    * * *

    It is legal fiction to argue that “all liability attaches to the executive branch” and that the legislature is “immune to all consequences.”

    Once you recertify the budgets for unlawful purposes, you no longer can enjoy immunity. You are attached to that unlawful conduct, especially when you knew – or failed to adequately review – whether the conduct was illegal.

    You cannot claim that a “promise to keep silent about illegality is enforceable” – as that silence only served an unlawful purpose: Avoiding consequences, and dissuading you to do what you ought to do.

    The threats of others is a separate issue and the states need to swiftly explore this issue.

    The USA Attorneys know what your oath is about. Your oath is simple: To protect this document. When you fail, you are engaging in malfeasance.

    The oath is simple. If you fail to assert your oath of office, you have given up on the system of checks and balances. You are not needed. There needs to attach some sort of meaningful catalyst for you to do your job. Look at the example:

  • A. Failing to investigate the WMD issues after being told by Wilson of the lies; and still finding now WMD in Iraq;

  • B. Non-sense briefings on the NSA domestic spying programs without sufficient information to make an informed decision.

    Your job is not to be a poodle. Your job is to shift your focus form yourself, and put it squarely on the document: The constitution. Nothing else matters. You’re there to defend it, not roll over and enjoy sweet donuts with the staff.

    Constitution! That’s it. If you have to have it smeared in your face by the States in two weeks – then you have wished for this. It is coming.

    * * *

    The issue with oaths is simple: If you have an oath of office without an enforcement mechanism, nor standards for failure to do your job per that oath, then the promise you make to protect the constitution is worthless.

    What’s needed is something that will make you do what you already promised. Clearly, your promise – as is the entire US Military and Joint Staff to protect that document, and faithfully execute the lawful orders – is worthless. We need not consider your excuses. The time for you to remain silent has arrived. You offer nothing but drivel, as a sick poodle offers.

    What ought to happen: A member of congress and their staff SHALL when faced with WMD, NSA, and impeachable offenses – make a timely report of that misconduct and compel a lawful investigation without fear or favor to party; and anyone who THREATENS you to do otherwise should be investigated for INTERFERING without your lawfully duty to do what SHALL be done: Assert your oath, and ensure the laws are followed, not ignored ore explained away as someone’s “right” to do. They have authority, and they have RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that their authority is LAWFULLY used in a manner that is CONSITENT with the CONSTITUTION.

    You do not have a choice. This is not debatable. The issue going forward is what is to be done when Congress fails to do what should be done, and continues to assent to violations of the law, and refuses to compel a wayward executive to retreat form an unlawful rebellion against this Constitution.

    * * *

    The States have a simple task: What is to be done when Congress takes an oath, but they fail.

    Each member of Congress has taken an oath but fails to ensure that that oath is honored. Nothing has been done. All members of congress have failed. We have no charges on the House floor. Nothing.

    If the vote is only “10 support asserting the oath,” then let us know: We can get rid of the 425 others who cannot see, are blind to reality, and wish to be a poodle. You can go get a job licking the floor of the local pound. If you are worthy.

    The options for the state are simple: Compel Congress to do what must be done, and attach criminal liability to the oath when there are issues of malfeasance, or the congress continues to approve unlawful conduct. Legislative immunity should be conditioned upon the support for that activity being lawful – both in the support and/or in the result.

    When a member of Congress is aware – or should be aware -- of a problem because of a communication problem, lack of information, or non-sense from the Executive, that member of congress may not lawfully claim “immunity” when they continue to support what is clearly unlawful: Illegal war, unlawful abuse, and violations of the law. You cannot escape your obligations. You are there to ensure the laws are preserved, not explained away with non-sense. If you are not getting support – despite the majority support you got in order to get elected – then you have an obligation to SPEAK on that issue. You do not have a choice to be silent about a problem like this. Your job is to explain – with a credible reason – why you have remained SILESNT despite the pervasive abuses which even the most NAÏVE, CLULESS citizen can see.

    * * *

    The states need to call it what this is, Congressional rebellion and malfeasance over:

  • Article 1 Section 8

  • Rendition

  • War crimes in Iraq

  • Abuse in Guantanamo

  • Iraq abuses

  • failures to investigation

  • Violations of the laws of war

  • NSA domestic spying

    Congress is assenting to this pervasive pattern of misconduct by REFUSING to compel the executive to get back in their lane. The Congress is ASSENTING to this crimes by continuing to fund programs that are by their very nature designed to VIOLATE that law.

    Congress has no excuse.

    Legislative immunity is not a blank check to not ask questions or defer to the President. The states need to come up with a mechanism to qualify the immunity when we are faced with such a situation: Willful, reckless disregard for oath; continued assent to war crimes; and refusing to demand a full accounting for what is happening; and a swift plan to rise above the issues and squarely assert the Constitution as it should always be: “This Mr. president is your job; you have failed; and you are not longer fit to be the Executive. Bye.”

    That has not happened. Rather, despite the oath, the Congress assents to the threat of potential blackmail and retaliation.

    Let’s think about that. We have specific, certain misconduct; but the sanctions for preventing that misconduct is . . . [wait for it] more misconduct? So what are you afraid of? Bring it on! Let the world see: Let the entire world see – even the most naive voters – that your oath means nothing, and that in the face of violations of the law, you are willing to roll over like a poodle, and have your tummy tickled.

    Awww….isn’t that cute! You poodle! Get off the floor!

    Do you job. Call this what it is: A threat, an attempt to get Congress to not do what ought to be done: Lawfully remove someone from office who asks you to join him in rebellion against the constitution.

    The states are ready. You have two weeks.

    * * *

    You may not defer to the President on issues of your oath. If you are confused, then you need to talk to the voters who have trusted you to assert your oath; if you do not trust those who elected you, then tell your voters: “I do not trust you; I know best; we should assent to this lawlessness; I put my party before my oath; I am afraid of threats; I have seen the abuse, but if we stop it, we might face more abuse.”

    Brilliant. You have just made a speech proving that you’re an idiot.

    * * *

    When you take an oath you are promising to do that job to assert that law and protect this document. When you choose to do otherwise, you are engaged in malfeasance. You have personal liability for failing to resign, and continuing with this rebellion. You have failed to ensure that you are doing your job, and you have not removed yourself form the support that you are giving this President for war crimes, violations of the law, and action contrary to the oath.

    Once Congress becomes aware of the non-sense over the “reasons” and “evidence” about war, you are linked with that action; and a failure to remove yourself from continued support of that unlawful action makes you part of the unlawful support. You are not longer a legislator with unlimited immunities. Rather, you through your failure to act, investigate, and take action are part of the unlawful support and advice this Executive uses to continue with more lawlessness.

    Your actions show you have not removed yourself. There is nothing saying you have to stay in Congress. You have the option to resign. But you have freely chosen o remain in a situation where it is impossible to do what you have promised to you.

    That is your problem. And you have freely chosen to “put up with” what is unlawful. Now the voters – even the most NAÏVE, STUPID, FOOLISH are aware of what you are doing – and failing to do: Assert your oath, and tame this rebellion.

    You are part of the problem. The states have a solution. It will start in two weeks.

    * * *

    Nuremburg paved new ground. New laws were created. Clear standards of conduct. But this was unprecedented.

    Today, the states can do the same with members of Congress: Openly debate what is to be done when the Congress joins in rebellion against the Constitution and puts the States at risk of lawful retaliation for Congressional support of these crimes.

    Neglect is standard that applies to military commanders when they are ordered to not adequately house prisoners.

    Neglect is also a standard that applies to Congress and those who take an oath.

    This nation is at war with the US Constitution. Those who support this rebellion are covered by the laws of war and must follow the laws of war: You cannot wage war against the Constitution, but expect “not to be regulated” by standards of conduct. You are out of uniform, and you wage an unlawful war of neglect.

    Yes, this is legal fiction. But it is reasonable, just as it was reasonable to do what was done after WWII. The states get to decide what reasonable standard you should be held to account. Clearly, your oath means nothing, otherwise we wouldn’t have this mess. Fine, we will find another name to call your malfeasance. There is a way. You have two weeks to put together a “really good story” – but you’ve had 200 years, and we should not expect anything resembling coherence, just more excuses.

    This shall end.

    * * *

    There is a precedent for attaching liability to legislators when they fail to remove themselves from a conspiracy; when they fail to investigate; and they make decisions that are at odds with what a reasonable person should do given your experience, power, education, and statute.

    There is a reasonableness standard. Your conduct fails to meet that standard. You took an oath to protect this document; and you have failed. The crime isn’t simply the neglect, but the subsequent failures to remove yourself, and say what must be said.

    Silence – in the face of these abuses – is another factor to consider. You have the unlimited right to speak on any topic. You can go anywhere. You can say whatever you like. Yet, you have chosen to assent to a lesser standard than what is in the Constitution.

    How dare you lecture Americans how the “must” put up with your immunity. We grow tired with your excuses. It has been 200 years, and you have only two weeks left. Then the States will move. You have not tamed yourselves; there is no reason to believe you can tame any executive or any nation.

    The place to start is to start at home. In the states.

    Nobody can justify relying on legislative immunity to support a leadership that votes – and condones – unlawful action. He has the power to veto; and you have the power to resign. You failed to exercise your power. You voted yes, despite what you knew was wrong. These are issue of criminal law, war crimes, but you explain them away as if they were merely trifles buried deep in the Washington Post.

    It doesn’t matter whether they are or are not located in the media. Your only focus is the Constitution – that single piece of paper – to which you swore an oath. It is a single piece of paper, and you cannot claim that you had “other priorities” or the issue was “buried” or that the New York Times “didn’t cover the issue.”

    No, you freely chose to run for office, take the oath, and assert the lawful power. Now is the time, but where are you? Bumping into walls, expecting someone to save you.

    You are the leader! So lead, don’t wait for someone to scratch your tummy. Stand up, be bold, dare to lead. It is your job. If you fail, the States will find someone else who can do the job. You have two weeks. Then the states will move. You’ve had 200 years, and two more weeks is meaningless.

    The issue is what did Congress know, or fail to ask about that a reasonable person in their position should have; what did they vote on before they soundly reviewed the matter; and in light of the WMD issue, what did they fail to do in 2003 when given more information that was equally dubious; did they connect the dots, or simply blame others for doing what they – through their malfeasance – show the voters is pervasive: We in Congress are inept, and the States must act to remove us from office, we are too weak to resign because we are too stupid to admit we are clueless.

    Fine, then let the most naïve voter replace you – someone who has the intelligence to figure out a ballot – and someone who can follow written instructions. Surely they can do what you have failed to do – read a piece of paper and follow instructions.

    Is that what is till take? Each voter casting a vote for themselves – as proof that they can do what you have failed to do: Read instructions, assert the power, and simply say what is self-evident: Even I, a mindless, single voter can do a better job than the idiots we have in Congress who assent to this lawlessness. They want someone who is going to rubber stamp, I can do that. Want someone who can’t figure things out or ask questions --- hay, sign me up.

    * * *

    Lawyers! Your job is simple. You assert the rule of law. It’s your oath. Where are the lawyers whose client is “the US Constitution”? There need to be lawyers whose job it is to do just that: Your document is your number one client.

  • Where are the lawsuits?

  • Why does Congress keep paying for unlawful wars?

  • Why doesn’t there attach a war crime liability to legislators for paying for unlawful war after it was know there was no WMD?

    Well, get your friends together and come up with a new set of legal standards – as confusing as you enjoy making them – so that congress is clearly advised of what they have an obligation to do, and remove themselves from when faced with this. The statutes are the simple way to record for eternity: This is what Congress SHALL do to assert power; and if Congress FAILS to do what out to be done, then these are thing things the public and STATES will know will happen. Two weeks!

    * * *

    Today, if Congress is aware laws are not followed, they throw the problem to the executive who self-reports, “Hay, we’re doing just fine.”

    Congress yells back, “That what I thought.”


    This isn’t how checks and balances work. The right way – that the states know well – is to compel a lawful report under perjury, then gather evidence; then independently find other sources to confirm whether that story/evidence is to believed.

    This Congress knows the laws of war are ignored, and are violated but they do nothing, fail to investigate and go with the flow. This is reckless, more so because they do nothing on the false notion that they are immune form assenting to violations of the law.

    This must end. Legislative immunity – as the states should debate – should be conditioned upon a fair showing that the Congress has asserted its oath and done what was responsible. Legislative immunity cannot credibly be asserted as a defense or barrier to accountability when the course of conduct shows they have failed to assert inherent authority to check the executive; and they have failed to act responsibility to ensure the encroachments were put at pay.

    But this is not news. The courts have ruled on this. Time and time again the courts have to remind the Congress and Executive – is if they were stupid poodles, “Bad dog, don’t do that.”

    It’s time to rub that dog’s nose in the mess it made. Nothing else is getting its attention.

    * * *

    This Congress cannot claim immunity for inaction when inaction in the face of this conduct is outrageous. You must be comatose to no know what is going on – so you should be removed from office to afford you the needed break to awaken from the coma – the encroachments on your liberty an insufficient catalyst to awaken you.

    Congress needs to show the state why they should not be held in rebellion; and that there is a good reason why each of the 535 should not be lawfully removed through state action. The Congress is complicit in this rebellion. They have failed to assert their oath of office . They have done nothing when they should have resigned.

    * * *

    Calibration is in order. But the way forward is for the states to discuss this issue. There is far more likely a simpler, more obvious, and cleaner way to compel the Congress to do what they have taken an oath to do.

    There needs to be a mechanism that attaches personal liability when congress votes for unlawful war, spends money on actions that violate treaties, and continue to support with silence – or assenting to Rove’s threats – when they refuse to lawfully remove an Executive engaged in rebellion.

    There needs to be an automatic circuit breaker. If money is for an unlawful war, it should be zeroed out. All legislation related to that unlawful action should be unenforceable; and the funds immediately removed from Federal Control. The States should have the number one say on how that money is best used to provide for their common defense against the joint Executive and Legislative rebellion against the rule of law.

    Further, all military action related to that unlawful government act shall end with full cancellation liability falling on the United States government. It would please me if individual representatives – like directors – had a bond or some sort of financial instrument they were required to purchase that could easily be monetized and attach a visible and public measurement of their reliability and fitness to assert the rule of law. As their value increases, then their liability and insurance rats for that bond should fall. This bond should be something that is there to pay the damages related to their reckless defiance of their oath of office; coercing the litigation fees and damages related to their unlawful support of a President in rebellion. The challenge to the states is to create a better, more responsive system of oversight that forcefully shoves the nose of Congress in the dirt when they fail to assert their oath. This Congress has had its nose in the mud, and enjoys it. We need a new animal that is repelled by something.

    * * *

    We’ve seen a familiar, pattern. It relates to PNAC. Lies get created, then swallowed. Then we find out the truth.

    The common story applies to Iraq, WMD, Iran, and excuses.

    The core problem is this nation advocates – and actually unlawfully supports – invasions of other countries without an imminent threat. This nation’s leadership – and Congress assents to – agreements to violate the law.

    We see the same with Iran. There’s no nuclear program. Rather, as was the case with Iraq, this entire smear campaign has one goal: To get the world to move on the basis of ignorance. We have the same illusory timelines. And the NSA and CIA are warning again: This is not a problem; and we do not have the military to do it.

    But there is a bigger problem. The entire world is moving on this fiction.

    The issue before us: What is to be done when the leadership – despite a well known habit of lying and making up stories – treats new invasion as if it were new.

    The states need to ask and debate: Should we have a role. Perhaps the states need to examine the evidence, and openly debate: Is there a sufficient basis to warrant belief, or are we getting fed the same non-sense as we got with Iraq WMD?

    It is not the role of Congress to defer on matters of hype; rather, when taking pre-emptive action, that should increase the difficulty of doing so – especially when the executive and congress have a record of violating the law and creating fiction. Yes, it will be difficult –but that might encourage fact finding, not fiction. You have two weeks to come up with a better approach. Congress has had 200 years, and the best they can do is what we have: war crimes, invasion without threats, and excuses to avoid accountability.

    The States can do better.

    * * *

    Let’s look at the issue simply: Why is there so much “unease” about the NSA activities, but not a peep about the Iraq WMD issue.

    Sure, the peep can later, but the war continues, as does the misconduct.

    The real answer is the UCMJ violations occurred in Iraq because “it wasn’t the United Sates.” The same UCMJ got ignored stateside.

    The issue for the states to discuss is: What is to be done when it is clear the rules of Constitutional law – things that are supposed to guide – are ignored, then thrown out the window – the fluttering a distraction form where it is most needed: The Constitution, and the self-evident failing in Congress to support that document.

    Let’s be specific. That always helps. Turn to the Constitution. I shall not recite it for you. Your job is to find it. Article II Section 3 is a requirement ton the President to enforce the laws.

    One law is the UCMJ. This is not a “special hidden law” that applies to he military. Rather, it is a federal statute. When the President takes an oath to ensure the laws are enforced, he is also talking about the UCMJ.

    Article 1 Section 8 is power congress has to make rules. Anything the President does that “permits” violations of the UCMJ are not recognized.

    The US Congress only moved on the NSA issue – not because there was a violation of the UCMJ against unlawful conduct – but because Congress could not longer avoid what was self-evident: Congressional failure.

    All the other examples of congressional failure were explained away – by this congress, as evidenced by their continued funding of the unlawful Iraqi occupation – as the “needed” activity to “justify” [the excuse of the week.]

    Small problem. There is no excuse for violating the UCMJ; nor an excuse for the President not enforcing it; nor for Congress having assented to that non-enforcement. But this went on for years: Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe.

    The problem with the NSA activity in America is now we know: Congress – because it failed to ensure compliance with the UCMJ – assented to the misconduct. But this does not make the conduct legal.

    Rather, it does the opposite: It shows the world that the Congress has joined this President in failing to protect this Constitution. Their oath – and their job – is simply that.

    It was never “OK” to invade Iraq; and it was never “OK” for Congress to keep funding this unlawful war or this spreading Presidential rebellion. But, the Congress can’t figure out what to do.

    The States are ready. They have a plan. And Congress has two short weeks to clean up this mess. Yes, they have no hope because they are failures. Each of them. All 535 of them have failed to stand up, call it like it is, and resign as they should – they’ve known they can’t do their job; they’ve known the rebellion is spreading. The only honorable thing would be for them to have personally visited their state legislature and say, “I can’t do anything. My hands are tied. Please, help me. Issue a proclamation.”

    But none of them have done that. Zero. Until recently.

    Ah, there is hope.

    Four years of fascism, and finally someone has smelled the coffee.

    * * *

    The goal of the UCMJ s simple: It is to provide a system of discipline so that the public will have confidence in the military.

    We have no discipline. There is no discipline. And the public has every reason to have no confidence in the military: Their oaths are clear, and their Joint Staff joined with this President in a rebellion against he Constitution.

    Article II Section 3 says the Executive shall enforce the laws. This applies to the UCMJ. And this is where congress and the President have a joint problem.

    The President has the power to pass laws to govern the military ONLY if they do NOT violate – are not in conflict with – statute or the Constitution.

    Let me say that again: The regulations, orders, and directions from the President MUST be consistent with the Constitution and statutes.

    Article 92, 93, and 92 of the UCMJ are only enforced if the regulations are consistent with the Constitution.

    Article 32 defines the procedures for invasion. The accused SHALL be advised of charges. Article 30 mandates that the charges be based on real information. Article 83 says that compulsory self-incrimination is banned.

    Who cares about this?

    Small surprise: The laws of war – things in the UCMJ which Congress requires the secretary of defense to confirm with 5100.77 – does something rather interesting. It has a big surprise.

    Non matter who the defendant is, the President may make rules ONLY if the procedures are NOT inconsistent with the standards of evidence and procedures in district court. This is the law. It is article 36.

    This applies to Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Eastern Europe. This means that through Article 1 Section 8 Congress has already stated in the UCMJ how US persons are to treat people; and the Congress has said that these laws apply to people – no matter where they are located – and that the conditions and rules apply to all US facilities, regardless where they are located.

    This is the constitution. In other words, there is a specific rule that applies to US military personnel -- and ignores the issue of the detainee status – over how the UNITED STATES is to engage in criminal proceedings.

    Yes, the President may make rules under the UCMJ per Article 36; but those rules have attached a responsibility to make sure there are other things that are done. This President has failed; and this Congress has assented to this non-sense.

    Not only is it legal fiction for the president to say he has “inherent authority” to do this – make a rule that violates the law – but Congress never granted him any inherent authority with either FISA or the UCMJ to “do what he wants.”

    On the contrary, in the case of FISA and the UCMJ the rules are clear: This is what is allowed; and this is what must be done.

    The problem is not simply that there is an NSA and FISA issue; but that the congress has this recurring problem across the board with all Article 1 section 8 issues.

    Again, the point isn’t that the NSA issue is new: But that the Congress has failed to – for many years – discipline this executive for violations of the clear rules Congress has already passed in the UCMJ.

    The issue for the states to discuss is how did the President and Congress jointly agree to this non-sense in Guantanamo – indefinite detention without trial – and actually believe the court would have no say in the matter. Again, the issue is the President asserted the right to secret trials – while it is Congress that has the power to state those rules; yet the problem is that the Constitution does not recognize this “right of the President.” Rather, the public is allowed to decide whether they want to assent – or have a speedy public trial.

    But this Executive says he wants to “protect” secrets! How absurd – the only secrets he has are delusions. There is no WMD: he can’t find Bin Ladin; and the only thing he knows is the Constitution does not apply.

    Well isn’t that interesting. Looks like we have a serious leadership issue. And the state are ready to act.

    * * *

    Sure you can get into a “big debate” about whether the rules do or do not apply to the detainee/victim/ target/prisoner. But that’s irrelevant.

    The real issue is what standard is the US going to apply to US people in what we do. Article 36 is a rule on gathering evidence, providing evidence and procedure. This rule exists regardless the status of the person being tired. Again, the President may order a trial , but only if that procedures are not contrary or inconsistent with the chapter.

    The issue with the UCMJ – just as it is with FISA – isn’t what the line is; but who is going to step in when Congress and the Executive assent to a fictional line.

    Clearly, the legal community is still asleep in linking FISA and the UCMJ issues. They are of the same thread, linked to a common theme: The Constitution.

    Article 37 also outlines the sanctions if there is anyone who affects the zeal to which someone does or does not investigate, review, or defend someone. The issue here isn’t whether there is proper zeal – as there is not – but whether the White House conduct in the FISA, Plame, WMD, and other issues is reasonably be expected to be different when it comes to NSA analysts when they offer information about Iran.

    A reasonable person would conclude the same abuse DoJ employees faced over rendition and the NSA unlawful programs is also in fully force against the NSA analysts who know the White House is doing the same in Iran as they have done with Iraq.

    The states need to ask: What is to be done to tame this Executive who plans to take action against military targets which the NSA knows is not linked to any threat; and DoD has not provided any information from the NSA about the targeting to the IAEA.

    Again, the issue is that the US – as it did with Iraq – is planning on war crimes; and this Congress, despite the “boo hoo over Iraq and WMD and Plame [blah blah]” is at it again: Assenting to non-sense, failing to draw the line, and calling it what it is: An unlawful invasion plan with full cooperation with Germany and the United Kingdom – we know this because of their public support for the conduct; and a reasonable person should know the Iranians “lap top story” is pure fiction.

    Again, the issue is what are the states to do when Congress refuses to act.

    * * *

    Let’s look at this in another way. UCMJ article 37 bans unlawful influence on proceedings. We have to wonder: What is Rove and the White house doing to get the world to assent to this absurdity?

    It is clear they plan to do the same: More abuse, so there is “no news” – it’s the same.

    Article II Section 3 says that the US President shall enforce the law; and when he fails to enforce the law and engages in rebellion – Amendment 14 says those who support him cannot get any public office.

    The issue for the states is: Given the failure of congress to assert power and end this Rebellion, what is to be done?

    The simple answer: Do what you’ve just read above – go through the statutes, line by line, and compare what is going on with the Constitution; and find out what Congress needs to do to end this rebellion.

    It is up to the States to figure out whether they want to make Congress do this; or simply advice the congress until Congress is up and running.

    At this point, Congress does not exist as a credible entity. It is merely the staff poodle for the President to blabber distractions while the executive engages in more rebellion and planning at odds with the law.

    It is not the job of the public to bring suit; it is the job of the Congress to assert their oath; if they fail, it is the job of the States to force a recalibration.

    * * *

    Going forward – and out of curiosity – it remains to be understood how the FISA and UCMJ violations survived the “rigorous” DoJ debate. It is clear there was no debate – as should have occurred in Congress.

    Rather, the issue is why this debate was occurring – as it should have been deemed part of an illegal discussion to violate the law.

    The issue is what legal responsibility attaches when the congress and executive continue to work with government that does this.

    The results are clear: Violations of the law. How we got there really doesn’t matter. The issue is whether the Congress will fix this, or whether the State calibration will compel it.

    Congress has two weeks. A simple message from the Joint Staff on their “really neat classified NSA computer network” could do the trick. Bt then again, why expect them to do something that is simple – at this stage such a message would merely confirm in writing what the most stupid American can see: This Joint Staff and Congress have failed in their oaths.

    The issue for the states is – what should the states lawfully do during a Constitutional Convention to compel Congress and the Executive to recalibrate themselves, especially when no action is taken on Article II Section violations, and the failure to consistently enforce the UCMJ in many other areas.

    In the long term what is needed is see what has happened: The US Department of Defense has gotten used to abusing people, not enforcing the UCMJ, as they have done so Iraq. This type of reckless disregard started before 9-11: We know the NSA was engaged unlawful domestic surveillance.

    The issue is how this will be remedied. The states and citizens understand the problem. The issue is to what extent the abuses have to directly affect American citizens on the streets of America.

    It is our view that this abuse has already occurred. Operation Falcon appears to have been a DoJ-DoD joint training exercise to deploy undercover US military personnel to engage in domestic house to house searches. DoJ and the US marshals cannot explain where the extra people came from. It appears that the contracting effort to support his house to house DoD activity was supported through Quantico Contracting.

    And its spreading. The UCMJ and FISA violations we’ve seen are also in the CIFA and DCIA and TIA. These are other segments of the Gonzalez “other program” list.

    * * *

    The US is not above the law. The problem is the US has committed war crime abroad; and that attitude of “we do not have to follow UCMJ” is now at home.

    This nation was founded on the idea of keeping barriers against domestic use of troops. It is clear the “other program” involve using troops in this capacity.

    Congress knows this, but refuses to discuss. We judge select Congressional leaders – who are in rebellion against the Constitution – know the details of Operation Falcon, and have unlawfully assented to remain silent about violations of the law.

    The states know. They will move.

    The Congress has two weeks. There is much work for Congress to do.

    Going forward, this nation must use the lessons of Guantanamo, the UCMJ violations, and the misconduct by the NSA as the catalyst to end what continues: This President’s unlawful rebellion, and the congress assent to violations of the law.,

    Article IV Section 4 guarantees a Constitutional System.

    Congress needs to order the active duty combat forces to stand down, and openly discuss this spreading rebellion.

    Inherent authority has inherent responsibility – to honor your oath, assert power, and protect this Constitution.

    Congress and this Joint Staff have assented to this executive’s rebellion.

    It is not the job of the states to provide leadership. All three branches of government have failed. The goal is to

    [a] find out how to attach criminal liability when Congress fails to investigate related to war crimes, or assents to unlawful threats to not assert their oath; and

    [b] lawfully remove an executive who engages in rebellion and asks the world to ignore the 14th Amendment which imposes sanctions for supporting his unlawful rebellion against the constitution.

    Given the Congressional leadership failure and assent to this Presidential rebellion, it is appropriate the states plan for a Constitutional convention, and direct that a recalibration occur. Until then, the Congress should be seen for what it is – a cess pool in rebellion with the President and Joint Staff against the Constitution.