Constant's pations

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

Friday, March 17, 2006

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi: Where do you stand on the Constitution?

The leadership asked for inputs on questions:[ Click ] Here's a question about the imminent Constitutional convention:
"Where do you stand on the imminent, credible Constitutional Convention which shall lawfully revoke power Congress refuses to assert -- and shall be lawfully compelled to assert -- in checking this President's abuse of power and violation of our rights?"

Joe: No more contributions until the DNC shows backbone: [ Click

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi,

Thank you for your service and your kind invitation for questions. As a courtesy, could you comment on the progress of Congress to lawfully remove the President from office. It would be helpful if you and your colleagues formulated a plan to do so by 1 April 2006; if the Congress fails, we are prepared for a Constitutional Convention to lawfully revoke the powers Congress refuses to assert. Please explain why we should wait until 2 April 2006 before we lawfully revoke the power of Congress to assent to unlawful wars.

As a courtesy, here is the problem finds itself: [ Click ]

After you and the Congress and Members of Congress review the information, please explain why we The People should wait until the November election to "get around" to what the Congress should have done long ago.

Time is up. Choose: Whether you want to assert your power, or have it lawfully revoked with a Constitutional Convention. Here are the details: [ Click ]

* * *

To state the obvious -- which Members of Congress and the public already know -- Congress is divided into two Houses. You are the leader of the House. The Senate has stopped progress on Phase II and the NSA reviews. Could you outline what plans you may have to coordinate with the Senate leadership to press the NSA issue.

It would be interesting to hear your comments on plans to work with the Ranking Members on the Senate Committees -- clearly in the other branch of Congress -- to assert the power of the Ranking Membership in calling for Executive Branch Inspector General Investigations.

For example, what is your position on the Constitution, and any reason the Congress has not directed the NSA IG to review the impeachable offenses? Here is the language which permits the Ranking Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee to direct the NSA IG to review the matter, and provide a full report -- in time for the Voters to make informed decisions.

Here is the language: [ Click ]

* * *

In the meantime, we -- the public -- are well positioned to make adverse judgments, and find this Congress and federal government to have failed -- requiring lawful remedies to compel the Congress to act, assert their oaths, and remove themselves from this unlawful rebellion against the Constitution.

Here is what is imminently going to unfold: [Click ]

You'll note after discussing this issue with your colleagues in the Senate intelligence Committee that none of them know about this. Methods which the NSA cannot intercept were used to lawfully organize and force the Congress to assent to the rule of law. The NSA has let you down again. Do you plan to encourage your colleagues in both branches of Congress to look into it; or pass it up as was done with this new problem with Iraq: [ Click ]

The voters now know we do not need to wait until November. We can force Congress to move. Congress is about to lose the power to make this choice. Where do you stand on this:
Are you for the Constitution; or are you for the President's rebellion against the rule of law?
Choose wisely. Congress has wished for this, and we are ready to force Congress to do what should have been done long ago. What is your view on a credible threat of a Constitutional Convention to force Congress to act by 1 April 2006? After April 1st, we may not necessarily listen to Congress on what their "views" are on the rule of law -- we'll lawfully assert through a Constitutional Convention what Congress shall be compelled to do: Take responsibility for failing to ensure wars are lawful, or that alleged crimes are investigated, not allowed to blossom into larger crimes.

This President shall be lawfully removed from office; the issue is whether Congress wants to support this effort, or be seen for what it is: Irrelevant. Congress has to decide: Are we part of the solution or the problem. The public already knows the answer: The Federal Government is the problem.

* * *

The waiting is over. There is a simple solution [ Click ] with a clear agenda [ Click ] and a credible mechanism to achieve this outcome [ Click ]. There is an easy way; and a difficult way. The path is clear: Our Constitution. We have already started and remain poised to lawfully assert our retained powers to protect our rights, prevent the abuse and require the lawful assertion of power.

Either way, this Executive shall be lawfully removed from office -- Congress can easily do this; or the States can take the difficult route and do what is simple: Protect rights and prevent the abuse of power. The issue isn't "what is good for the country" but what is best to protect our rights and require power be lawfully asserted. We need not wait until November. We have already started.

We're not waiting.

The Constitution shall prevail; it remains unclear whether Congress shall endure in its present form or be lawfully transformed into something that resembles a credible check on power. We are far from that, but can swiftly and lawfully remedy this problem.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I look forward to reading your comments on your website and in the DNC and RNC talking points; and your response to this imminent Constitutional Convention, consistent with Article V of the US Constitution.

Very respectfully,


* * *

[ Comments ]