Censure Constitutionality

Some have raised a question as to whether a censure is constitutional.

This is curious.

The Constitution provides the Chamber to make rules. The Supreme Court in Nixon affirmed that the Constitution is the source of that authority.

It is absurd for the senate to question the Constitution, or ask whether or not something that is permissible is prohibited.

Those who make these arguments do not understand the law. Rather, we should not be surprised why under their "leadership" the law was undermined, and corrupted.

All things which are not desired are outlawed; and all things which are desired are lawful. Yet this is at odds with the law.

For the desire of men or their passion is not the basis for good order and civility. Rather, it is the assent to the law.

Merely because someone desires to avoid an adverse consequences does not mean that that consequences is unconstitutional.

Rather, the issue is the initial abuse of power and violation of rights. Why is there not equal attention that abuse, and not similar calls for that violation to be called what it is: Unconstitutional.

* * *

To have us believe that consequences are unconstitutional would have us believe that the law has no teeth. This is fiction.

Whether the Senate does or does not assent to non-sense will imminently be irrelevant. They choose to assent to rebellion. They are the problem. They refuse to assert the rule of law. Rather, their non-sense "leaders" assert they have a superior power than judges to adjudicate; yet when it comes to their primary role -- making laws -- they freely pass laws which permit unlawful acts.

That is not governance. It is recklessness.

* * *

There is one party in charge of the Senate. They fail. They have little time left before they are lawfully confronted. It is fully expected that they will fail again. But the deadline has been set. After that, the Senate will not longer have a voice in what is lawfully thrust upon them: A new constitution.