President leads the Joint Staff in Rebellion against the Constitution
President picks and chooses from the Constitution to continue his rebellion.
In re: Discussion at Fire Dog Lake.
[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]
The UCMJ sanctions those who violate the Constitution. The NSA programs are illegal. DoD employees who are involved in the NSA activities are violating the law.
Ask your leadership about the telephone companies. They are worried. Your leaders know the law does not permit them to do what is going on. This is why the telephone companies asked for changes to the law in 2004. The AUMF from 2001 does not cover what is going on. The President's legal advisor in 2004 asked for changes because the telephone companies were worried about lawsuits.
Now you have to worry about your career. Your activities do not fall within a lawful exception. Your President is lying to you. He has no power to make rules or exceptions to the warrant requirement. Only Congress can do this.
What you are doing does not qualify as a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. The Commander in Chief has issued unlawful orders to the NSA and Joint Staff. There are many articles in the UCMJ that you are violating [ More on the UCMJ violations with the NSA activity: Click ]
Your Commander in Chief is a criminal. He makes up things to confuse you. You do not have the power to follow illegal orders. You should talk to a civilian attorney to decide what you should do. You have no hope if you continue following your President’s illegal orders. You may not make up reasons to ignore the law. Talk to a lawyer before you get into more trouble.
We outline several things:
- - -
These debates were appropriate for the Senate
These discussions should have been part of the official record, not hidden in the blogosphere.
The legal debates you cite "should have" been discussed during an Alito-Filibuster: To attract attention to the Constitutional issues, Senate rules. If the President claims -- using whatever fiction -- that he has inherent authority, the Senate can make the same claim about Article II Section 2 -- "inherent authority of the Senate" [in the advise, consent clauses] to first review the President's power, and not consider the nominees qualifications.
Let’s consider the Article II Section 2
This is covered in greater details here, in the context of the Constitutional concept of “Legislative Inherent authority” – and is to be considered in the context of the instant case: NSA unlawful monitoring; Presidential action to ignore the 4th Amendment; and Presidential assertions of power in wartime that are powers belonging to the other two branches. The issue is not that we are or are not at war.
For a discussion on the “it doesn’t’ matter whether we are or are not at war, the law still applies” or how the “we’re at war” arguments are inconsistent with the Constitution that applies in both peach and war; and the purpose of the Constitution is to separate power during wartime as well, review this:
See scrolling box 2: kw = [ Scrolling Box 2: Article 1 Section 8 ]
Key point: “Legislative inherent authority” is a legal fiction – however, so is “Executive Inherent authority.” Thus, if the President asserts legal fiction – the Senate also has the power to assert the same UNTIL the court decides otherwise. It is our view, that the “we’re at war” argument creates artificial deference to one branch, without a balanced deference to the Senate. This is not a check on power, but deference to a power grab.
The President may not assert he has “inherent authority” to do anything unless -- as is required by his oath to honor the system of checks and balances, and Preserve the Republic, through Article IV Section 4 – the President is required to accept that the other two branches have equally matching/balancing inherent powers to check him. Thus, this is the source of the legal authority for the Congress to compel the President to assent to NSA-like monitoring by the Congress – so that the Congress can assert Article 1 Section 8 powers – and ensure the President is following the law. Self-evidently, the President lies, his documents are worthless, and he does violate the law regardless what his vies are on the Constitution. Until the nation compels the President to assent to NSA-like monitoring, we will only have more non-sense. The thrust of this “way forward” should be two tracked: Remove this man from office lawfully; and create a Congressionally-controlled system that Congress uses – as the President has done on Americans with his unlawful activity – to monitor what he is doing. That is a real check on power, is constitutional, and is well within the intent of the Constitution: To check power and ensure all three branches follow the law, not create legal fiction to justify calling something that is a fox, something else like a rock. Regardless whether this president wants to be called a rock or a sheep, he shall assent to the rule of law. It is because of this lack of oversight, and inability of Congress to exploit this NSA-like monitoring capability – that this president has lied, not assented to the law, and slow rolled Phase II – he faces no threat of any power to expose him.
Until he freely assent to the rule of law, this president must be called hat he is: A rebel, in charge of a rebellion against the Constitution. Until the country faces that reality, they will assent to his nonsense. The way forward is to gut the NSA as it stands, and create from the ground up an independent monitoring system of the Executive that the President has no vote in. Rather, the Court will decide whether the Congress is or isn’t doing the right thing. The President thought it fitting to ignore the court – now he has no vote on whether he is or is not checked.
Article II Section 2: the power of the Senate to check the President’s power
Let’s review here, so everyone can see this: How the President’s inherent authority argument – even if it were valid – clashes with the Senate’s inherent authority to clash with his power in Article II Section 2.
The point of this is to show that there is some confusion about what whether ‘advice/consent” applies narrowly or broadly. We argue this is arguably incorrect – that the intent of the phrasing was to do both: Allow the Senate to narrowly review documents/treaties; and people/appointments – while at the same time there is a broader application – whether the Senate does or does not consent to the President’s power in how he applies it in the areas of treaties/appointments.
Let’s consider the language:
Article II Section 2
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Ref: Article II
Key points: About the above highlighted text
1. Notice the “he shall have power, by and with the advise” – is mentioned twice, but in a single phrase. The “by and with advice” qualification doesn’t just apply to the act – treaties or appointments – but also to the power itself.
2. If you drag the text into a three level-outline, you can see that the “by and with the advice” clauses apply not simply to the action in the specific case – treaties, appointments – but the primary issue: Power.
Notice this with the breakdown, Power is actually capitalized in the original Constitution. Power is the purpose of the sentence.
He shall have power,
Clause 2: This does not have the "and", unlike clause 5 which does have an "and".
- [backward looking: applies to power] by and with the advice and consent of the Senate [forward looking: applies to treaties],
Clause 3: Key factor -- the is a semicolon -- meaning the entire phrase is one concept, linked to power.
- to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
- and he shall nominate,
Clause 5: This has the "And", unlike clause 2.
- and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors . . .
They key is to notice the inconsistencies with the use of "and". . . and also the semi-colon -- it is all one idea.
Why would they include "by and with" and also "and by and with" in the same sentence? The answer is that they wanted emphasis. And they wanted to doubly apply the "reivew of power" on top of the [a] review of the treaty; and/or [b] the review of the appointeee.
Notice in the above 5 clauses: There is only one subject: Power; all the clauses have one common thing -- many "ands" -- meaning all the phrases are linked with the original Power, and the "advice/consent" consideration -- what the Senate is supposed to do, has the power to do -- is not limited to the document/treaty or the personnel action/appointment.
Again, the issue isn't that this is "right or wrong" -- but that is "one view" which needs to be clashed before the court, not something the President can say, "it doesn't apply." Thus, the issue becomes: Has the Senate sufficiently debated this clause to ensure that it's Senate rules -- in re cloture, nomination saying "up or down" are constitutional -- given that "this way of reading the Constitution" -- arguably the right one -- expand the Senate's Article II Section 2 power/responsibility to not look at the nominee's qualifications, but to take a look, first, at whether the Senate does or does not assent to the President's power.
Arguably, if the Senate does not consent/assent to the President's power -- for whatever reason -- they need not consider the qualifications/details of the treaty or the nominee.
What this really means: If the Senate does not assent/consent to the President's p0wer -- putting adide the deails of the treaty or the nominees qualifications -- they do not have to recognize the President's abiltiy to make a treaty or find a nominee. They can say, "Go away." What's worse than having no power? It's being in charge an nobody listening to you. Kind of like the Joint Staff's relationship with the President and Congress. Nobody is in charge, nobody is listenting, and there's a rebellion going on: The President is moving without regard to his oath of office.
- - -
3. Notice something very interesting. If you add or subtract the word “and” from the “by and and with the advice” clauses, you’ll arrive at the current interpretations. In other words, to say that the advice/consent only applies to the treaties/appointments – not just power – one would have to include an “and” after “He shall have power, and . . .” – but there is no “and.” Rather, it means that the “by and with consent”…applies both forward and backwards in the first use: To the treaty [forward]; and backwards [ to the power].
4. This is important because If the President has “inherent power to do something” then Article II Section 2 also gives the inherent power of the Senate to do the same – check the President’s power as a starting position, not something presumed. If the Senate starts the nomination debate with the assumption “we can only vote up or down” – they are not looking at the larger Constitutional issue related to Article II Section – that of the very question: Do we assent to his power, if at all? If the answer is negative, the Senate – relying on this theory of Legislative Inherent power – would then be able to say, “We do not recognize your power is lawfully used, so we need not consider the qualifications of the nominee, or the details of the treaty. We reuse to consent to your power.”
Some may argue that his is incorrect in that it gives the Senate the power to ignore the President. That’s the point. And the President may – but he chose not to – make appointments during recess.
The overall point isn’t that this interpretation is or isn’t correct. The point is that the President makes sweeping generalizations about what he has inherent power about – courts, Guantanamo, prisoners – while the Constitution expressly states those powers belong with the Congress and Courts: Article 1 Section 8.
The point is that if the President is going to ignore explicit clauses – and claim new powers not conferred – he cannot claim that the Senate “cannot assert power through Article II Section 2”, because: The language is up to interpretation, the very “question” that would trigger the Senate to debate this issue under the Senate rules; and would trigger the Supreme Court to consider: Does the Senate have the power to exclusively check the President using Article II Section in a generalized matter, as opposed to the narrow review.
If this broad view is correct – and an equal checking power on the president – then this means that Article II Section 2 would be the source for a filibuster. Again, the issue isn’t that this is correct – but this is a constitutional issue, warranting Senate review. The Senate rules mandate that Constitutional issues be considered. Thus, the place to have had “this discussion abut this issue” isn’t in the blogosphere – but in the well of the Senate during filibuster. To force a debate on whether the filibuster is or isn’t constitutional; how the “inherent authority doctrine” is or isn’t applicable to both or none of the Branches.
Also, the key point: If the President has the “inherent authority to do something” then he cannot claim – if challenged by the Senate through Article II Section 2 – that the Senate Has no power; and the courts have no say. But the problem is the President is doing two things: First, arguing that the courts “have no say over FISA’ or the “GITMO trials” – which are rule making powers applicable to Congress through article 1 Section 8; while at the same time arguing – in his defense/effort to avoid oversight – that the courts DO have a role.
The issue: President is picking and choosing: Whether the Constitution is narrow, specific; or broadly. Or whether the “inherent powers he has” are linked with specific clauses, or whether the Courts are or are not to be ignored.
Either way, the President has a problem because he is picking and choosing – as he does with his NSA/AUMF/case law in re wiretapping – from the Constitution: What does he want to ignore, apply; or what does he want to recognize, or listen to. Again, this needs to be brought before the Court – not something fore the president to assert, ignore, deny, or claim without the third branch. Otherwise, he’s asserting powers of all three branches.
That’s not constitutional.
Overall, we need to be very clear with what is going on. There is no Constitutional crisis: the crisis is with the RNC and president. They are known to be what they are – moving without regard to the highest authority – the Constitution. That is the definition of a rebellion, which the Joint Staff has assented to.
It's time to call this what it is -- The President is in Rebellion against the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, Section 3 is clear. The President and Joint Staff face sanctions for the rebellion, but they refuse to assent. Despite a clear sanction -- to which they took an oath to assert and enforce -- their conduct is in defiance of that document. The Constitution is the source of his authority. By definition, by ignoring his oath, and violating the constitution, he is in rebellion against that document.
Amendment 14 provides instructive guidance:
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
If you want to read more about the "Joint Staff rebellion" here are two links:
Look for KW = Constant
Point: Joint Staff is in trouble -- public knows they're in rebellion, and DIA has been sent into the situation to gather information, provide assessments, and create a public spin for Joint Staff to assign to contractors/media.
The constitutional issues "should have" been discussed during a filibuster. Sample discussions related to these Constitutional issues, and could have been part of a Senate Agenda for filibuster: Click here for more details. Note: This is an early draft, so the writing is not succinct.
All excuses and distractions are without merit.
WMD in Iraq -- that about the NSA: The NSA knew, as did the Joint Staff, there was no evidence.
The Joint Staff lied. They issued unlawful orders. They know this. And this letter is just another example. The Joint Staff has unlawfully entered politics, violating DoD Directives: The directives are clear -- they prohibit the Joint Staff from attaching [a] their affiliation with the Armed Forces; with [b] a personal view in a letter on political issues.
Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces. [ DoD Directive 1344.10 August 2, 2004 220.127.116.11.]
It remains to be understood how the White House unlawfully directed the Military -- to which the Joint Staff unlawfully assented -- to using the Joint Staff to interfere with the 2006 elections. [Prohibits: 18.104.22.168. Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election Click]
Draft preliminary inquiry into the Joint Staff alleged violations of UCMJ. Click
Consider the Joint Staff's problem: Their rebellion against the Constitution
Section (3) Shows the sanctions on those who see the Joint Staff is moving without regard to the rule of law, and evidence. Those under the UCMJ have failed -- as they did with the war crimes and abuse in Guantanamo and Iraq -- to timely make reports of the Joint Staff Rebellion.
You see what is happening. Your peers are in rebellion against the Constitution. The Constitution is clear. Your oath is clear.
Consider the 14 Amendment:
ClickIt is clear about your rebellion.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Ref
Look at 894, Section B:
A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death Ref
It remains to be understood whether the Joint Staff has violated their directions by their own choice -- whether they have been inducted, threated, or otherwise persuaded by the President -- with the goal of affecting election results. This is not lawful and a violation of DoD Directives.
Putting aside the legal arguments, if this is "just a cartoon" why is the Joint Staff bothering to comment on something that, as some argue "is not worth the attention? The Joint Staff has only one answer: They are easily ruffled during their rebellion. The public knows they move in defiance of the laws. Their defenses are without merit. They have dishonored their service, their country, and have brought great discredit upon themselves.
The public knows you are not reliable, nor that you will honor your oath.
You must choose. Do you wish to assert your oath, or your rebellion?
The Constitution -- in Article 1 Section 8, the power to make rules and ensuring the law is followed -- gives the Congress the inherent authority to have an NSA-like system monitoring the Joint Staff and Executive. Article II Section 2 gives the Senate the inherent power to check the President's power.
Carefully consider article II Section 2 inherent power of the Senate to check the President's unlawful rebellion. Here is how this work Click
This Joint Staff and RNC rebellion must be put down by Congress, which has the power to suppression domestic rebellions.
- To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; [NSA, FISA]
- To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections [Calling for the American national guard to put down the Joint Staff rebellion against the Constitution]
The news is that the Joint Staff is in rebellion, and they choose to defy their directives prohibiting them from staying out of politics and using their ranks to express opinions about political matters.
They have chosen to defy their own rules. They show they cannot be trusted. They assert they have the power to ignore the 4th Amendment, but do nothing about Alexander’s lies about the NSA program -- they are using the NSA as a domestic police force in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to make the FISA rules; nothing the White House, RNC, or DoJ has said has merit.
The Joint Staff has no defense to war crimes, and their continuing rebellion against the Constitution. They know no limit. They violate their own policies. They are not to be trusted.
It is time for the American military men and women around the globe to choose: [a] Do you wish to support the President's unlawful rebellion; or [b] do you require Congress to lawfully deploy the militia to put down your insurrection and rebellion; or [c] do you require the catalyst of a UCMJ and court action and possible threat of lawful death to get you to comply with your standing orders to put down this rebellion?
You shall lose.
You are outnumbered.
Now that all excuses for the Joint Staff has been discredited, let's return to the matter at hand.
1. What is Congress' plan to assert Article 1 section 8 powers to call up the militia and put the Joint Staff's rebellion down?
2. When will congress review the Joint Staff letter and examine to what extent the White House -- namely the President -- ordered the Joint Staff to write this letter with the express intent of interfering with the 2006 elections? Click
See Section "22.214.171.124" Where it is a violation of the DOD directive -- as is alleged in the instant case -- for the Joint Staff to "Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election"
Let's hear some discussion.
A. Why is the rule of law ignored?
B. Why is the UCMB ignored?
C. Why is Article 1 Section 8 Powers granting to congress the exclusive power to create rules -- ignored?
The answer: The President is in rebellion, as is the Joint Staff and the RNC. The solution? If the Congress does not act by 01 Mar 2006, the States shall accelerate work to issue proclamations calling for:
There is nothing the Congress, RNC, White House can do to stop this process.
The deadline remains 01 March 2006. The Congress must act, or the States shall act.
This is what is going to happen: Click
This is not a threat. It is the law. Your duty is to remove yourself from this unlawful rebellion, choose the Constitution, honor your oath, and assent to the rule of law. Congress has the power to order the militia to engage directly with the American combat units to suppress this spreading rebellion.