Illinois: Bill to tell Congress to impeach the President
Last updated 28 Apr 2006
Illinois! Yes, the 603 effort continues. This is the House rule that permits state legislators to submit a proclamation calling for impeachment. [ Status ]
Share what we learned in Vermont with the States of Illinois and California; and other American citizens.
This is where you get an idea of what this is all about.
It's about you and your Constitution.
And it's that important.
The colored boxes in this blog are designed to act like markers or guides; you can skim to the next boxes to find things.
Welcome, thanks for stopping by, and good luck with your efforts.
Next box goes into some details on how this blog may help you with your local 603 efforts.
OK, introduction over.
Forgive the directness, anything else would waste your time.
Bluntly, Illinois residents, you have the benefit of those who worked in Vermont. They did some things that we can learn from.
This blog is to share what others have noticed.
This information is designed to assist and help you prepare, organize, and plan.
If you fail to heed the lessons, the process will get hijacked as it was in Vermont. Obviously, Vermonters may disagree with "what we think we learned" or "what happened."
Remember, if you fail, we have 48 other states to do what needs to be done: Protect this Constitution. Remind your state leaders: The US Congress has failed, and the states have to act. If you state and local officials fail, then they need to be changed this November.
This note summarizes for Illinois some of the lessons from Vermont.
This page is a "live wiki-like" blog: It's constantly being updated, revised, and improved. we'll do our best to let you know "the most recent update".
This information designed to be simple straightforward, and very easy to understand for people of all ages. Important: So, adults do not think you are being talked down to -- this information is here so your children/kids can follow along and understand what is going on.
Congratulations, you've decided to take an important first step. This blogspot is designed to assist you. Obviously, you can adjust this information for your local needs.
This information designed to be simple straightforward, and very easy to understand for people of all ages.
Important: So, adults do not think you are being talked down to -- this information is here so your children/kids can follow along and understand what is going on.
You have limited time and other things to do. The info here is not designed to impress you, but to assist you in your organizing, planning, and local work.
This information is roughly divided into three general categories:
Quickly, there are a few places you may wish to refer:
The links may give you some ideas of what else is going on, may help you with your local media coverage, news articles, or in how you want to approach the press. It's there so you don't have to spend time looking it up.
What we learned, and some tips.
You probably have better ideas as well, just do them.
Other lessons on arguments: [ Click ]
Vermont provides some lessons for Illinois. There are other comments on "lessons from Vermont" at this link: [ Click ]
1. Beware the "experts" who aren't clear what this is about
Don't let your process get hijacked. If you want to have the bill do something at the state level, you need to debate the language so that it achieves the goal: Forces the US House to investigate/act. The problem is when the State "agrees" with language that fails to meet the needed requirement. The lesson from Vermont is that the Legislature refused to debate the language, and the "experts" threw up their hands saying, "We're not sure why we're doing this."
Lesson: Look for early signs of problems, and then rely on a crew that is going to really lead and walk the legislation through the process. Think of what the President did when they have a nominee for the Supreme Court: they appoint a Senator to hand-walk the nominee through the process, introduce it, and make sure that everything is going to plan.
2. Be careful who appoints themselves leaders
It's one thing to lead a bill through the legislature; it's quite another to be willing to advocate for it despite the naysayers. You're going to face all sorts of non-sense to justify inaction. Let's face what we have: A congress that refuses to assert the rule of law; and they want to delay giving the voters information until after the election. But there's 'always an election' -- so this argument is invalid.
Lesson: Assign a single point of contact with backups who are committed to the end result: Forcing Congress to vote up or down before the November 2006 elections on whether there should or should not be an investigation into the President.
3. Know what you're debating
What the state may want to do may not match what the State needs to do. This is subtle. We saw in Vermont that the leadership behind the language didn’t' really understand that the action -- a state resolution -- would prompt the Congress to vote up or down before the election. This is key: The issue isn't simply to "only take action if the DNC has a majority" -- that happens after the election. Rather, the issue is to force before the election a vote by the RNC so that the public/voters before the election can see where the RNC stands on the rule of law.
Lesson: Ensure you're focusing on the language of the bill, not "other things" -- excuses for inaction, why we should or shouldn't do something. That is irrelevant and not a solution. Get ready to focus, then focus.
Need to have a good liaison between the US Congress staff working the bill/language, and those who are negotiating over the language. [ Click ] The worst thing you can have is someone -- who has no clue about what they're trying to accomplish [provide information to the public by way of forcing the House to vote before November] -- who throws up their hands and compromises, leaving you with a bill or proclamation that is meaningless and fails to force Congress to do something specific: Investigate then bring charges. [ Click ]
Lesson: Make sure you have a checklist, and dry run that checklist to see if you have any missing steps. Learn from other states: What they are dong; what they're looking at; and what feedback they are getting. Review this information, and develop a checklist system to walk the bill through your state, and successfully arrive to the US Congress, ready for a vote: [ Click ]
5. Work on the language
The leadership needs to determine what language will ensure that the State supports the right action. The negotiations are going to be tiresome; and the RNC is going to try to wear you down with non-sense, delays.
Lesson: Enter the language negotiations, with an attitude: "We are going to make this work." Anything else, and you need to consider whether you really understand what is at stake, why the pre-November-vote in Congress is important, or whether you understand what is going on in the Country: We have a war criminal in the White House and Congress refuses to act. The only lawful option is to compel the States to act; if the States fail, then we'll have to change the Constitution. That is also doable outside article V. That plan is ready and also in works. [ Details ]
6. Rise above the RNC scare tactics
Know that the RNC knows there is a problem: They will have to vote against this at the State level not because of what is or isn't right; but because they want to avoid letting this get into the US Congress. Remember, the lesson from Vermont is to know that the RNC will come up with all sorts of scare tactics to say, "This isn't right" or "this is radical." No, it's legal and what's needed when the Congress refuses to compel the Congress to act.
Lesson: You need to have a back-up team for damage control, and who can quickly suppress rumors, and false RNC information. They are going to come up with all sorts of non-sense, and you need to have a team ready, rested, and then committed to working long hours during the final push.
7. Engage the RNC: Make it their problem
The "right answer" isn't to "play nice" with the RNC. Rather, the right answer is to make the RNC justify why nothing should be done, despite the long list of abuses; and why "let's not find out" is a reasonable approach. It isn't. The lesson from Vermont was that the RNC would show up -- and change the issue from what the RNC was or wasn't doing -- to make "everyone else" argue why the rule of law should prevail. Hello, "read your oath of office" it's to the Constitution, not to the RNC or party.
Lessons: Make the RNC explain their assertions, and why they should be believed. They have left us with a disaster; at this point they have a high burden of proof to justify giving them/their arguments much seriousness.
8. Remember your oath of office
Everyone in the country takes an oath to the US Constitution. The issue is whether you are going to rise above your party, and state, and dare to lead. The lesson from Vermont was that the leadership will forget what they're supposed to be asserting -- and "rely on" the US Congress as the source of calibration: "Hay, Congress isn't doing this, why should we?" That's the point: Congress isn't doing anything, so that's why the state needs to act. The lesson from Vermont is that the state-level officials will back down and say, "You know, we need to wait..." No, we need a good reason: Why despite your inaction should we keep you -- at the state level -- in office in November?"
Lessons: Get your state officials to focus on the Constitution and their oath of office to that document. The goal here is to find facts, and if there have been crimes to find out if the President remains fit to remain in office. We do this to protect our Constitution.
9. What this is about: Where do our leaders stand on the rule of law
This State proclamation for impeachment isn't simply about the President. It's about the national leadership in Congress and the State. If the State officials refuse to pass this, then the voters of the state have time to find new leaders. The lesson from Vermont is: Despite having this potential threat to their election, they said to the voters, "We're not going to do our jobs." If the State officials in Illinois do the same, then make their inaction/refusal on this issue an integrity issue for the November 2006 state/local elections in Illinois: "Why should we believe you are serious about your oath of office?" It's their job to defend themselves. If they offer you non-sense find new leaders.
Lesson: Remind the leadership is this a referendum on their leadership in your state, not just at the Federal level.
10. Last minute stupidity: Be ready for non-sense excuses for inaction
One of the traps of Vermont was the excuse of, “If we pass this proclamation, we’ll tie the hands of our legislators in DC.” Huh? That makes no sense. The issue is: Is the State willing to tell the Congress what Congress refuses to consider: Reviewing facts.
In no way does this state proclamation say, “The President must be removed.” That may be the desired outcome for some; but the issue at this point is merely to start the process: Gather facts, find out what is going on. So don’t fall into the RNC trap of what they did in Vermont when they argued, “We need to keep our options open.” No, by refusing to order an investigation, you fail to keep any options open; rather you do the opposite – you permit Congress to keep doing what it’s doing: Nothing.
Lesson: You need a reserve team in place ready to counter this last minute non-sense. The RNC is going to attempt to drown you/exhaust you with frivolous arguments. Get your debaters/legal team prepared and ready as backup. They're going to have to work late and overtime to make this work.
Ignoring the Swayne Precedent: Sample Excuses to avoid a House vote on whether to order a timely investigation, report back to the House for a second vote
1. This approach avoids House action, and buries the action in committee. This is opposite the Swayne Precdent. Notice also, the argument is flawed: It advocates "investigation" but is against impeachment. That makes no sense. We already know he violated the law; why investigate something when you've already decided not to do anything with facts that confirm what we already know? The approach is also flawed in that it supports endless investigations, yet we already know the facts.
Independent Sen. James Jeffords said impeachment proceedings would be premature without committee investigations to determine whether Bush broke the law. "I do not think this approach is warranted at this time," Jeffords said of impeachment. "I voted against giving President Bush the authority to go to war and I continue to believe, now more than ever, that this war is wrong. However, the question on whether the president illegally exceeded his authority has yet to be fully answered, and more investigation is warranted." [ Ref ]
2. This approach starts from the right premise -- The President broke the law -- but gets distracted with a red herring, "Why did he break the law." It doesn't matter why; we only need to present the case to the Senate based on what did or didn't happen.
Leahy said a month ago he is inclined to support censuring Bush — a symbolic measure that wields no legal repercussions, but would nonetheless fracture his credibility. He has also called Bush's domestic eavesdropping program "illegal" and said the Judiciary Committee should subpoena White House documents to determine whether Bush dismissed dissenting views from career lawyers at the Justice Department."We know the president broke the law — we should find out why," Leahy said during a committee hearing in March. [ Ref ]
3. Notice this approach fails to take a House vote; and sends the issue to Committee. This approach offers no specific deadline, and ignores the Swayne Precedent:
Rep. Bernard Sanders, an independent running for Jeffords' Senate seat, co-sponsored legislation calling for a select committee to investigate claims that Bush broke the law. After finishing the inquiry, the panel would recommend if Bush should be impeached.[ Ref ]
4. This approach incorrectly asserts that any action taken is Constitutional. [ Nixon Quote] This is absurd. No one may violate the law to preserve the Constitution. The issue is whether the Congress will join the PResident in violation the law -- or ratifying illegal conduct -- or asserting their oath to preserve the rule of law.
Jim Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party said the local impeachment effort is fueled not by evidence of wrongdoing but "partisan hatred for the president." "They're proposing to impeach the president for doing everything in his constitutional authority to protect the American people from a terrorist attack," he added.[ Ref ]
Stuff we think you might want to look at, but don't have much to say about right now.
Vermont Lessons for Illinois: Other links
1. Rule 603: What it is: Detail on Section 603;
2. Finding Section 603: In House Rules see ee this phase kw=[ SEC. LIII. -- Impeachment ] page 313-330;
3. Sample roadblocks the Vermonter bloggers recognized: Many excuses by everyone to do nothing [ Click ]
4. Voter Guide on 603 effort and State Proclamations [ Click ]
5. Review this memorandum to ensure issues resolved: [ Click ]
6. Review this site, and discuss it with your friends in other states: [ Click ] You will have to do all the steps.
7. Other discussion on VT lessons -- Scroll to the end: [ Click ]
8. For State planners – this is what the RNC is going to try to prevent you from doing -- What your analysis may consider: [ Click [ Detailed post-Vermont-lessons: "Who were these "experts" saying it couldn't be done? Click ] In the weeds: Early signs of problems in Vermont; Lesson: Monitor the developments closely for signs of trouble, lack of understanding, or baseless assurances. These faulty/weak "assumptions and assurances" can be the very arguments which the RNC undermines. The RNC goal was to get people to agree that this was a "no brainier", then go after the very assumptions and arguments all assumed without question [ Click ]
9. For Stellar planners – this how the State level proclamation effort fits into the larger plan to protect the Constitution: [ Click ]
Other links: This will be better organized later
A. Patrick Fitzgerald is a US Attorney, this means he goes to the court and tells the court which has a very smart person named a Judge what is going on. This is called giving evidence to the court.
Here is the US Attorney Manual that talks about what the President is doing: Working with others to destroy all that you value in the Constitution. [ Click ]
Former US Attorney lets us know what is really going on -- the President and others are in a conspiracy or a rebellion against the rule of law. This is not a nice thing. That's why we have to tell him to stop.
When we have an impeachment, there is no US Attorney. Rather, the Members of Congress in the House will take action. They will present the evidence to the Senate.
The important thing to remember is that the US Attorney can present the evidence to the House. Patrick Fitzgerald is one of the good guys.
The President is the war criminal who is not what we need to be our leader.
. . .
B. Here's the US Supreme Court showing that the RNC has no basis to say that the State Impeachment Effort is not constitutional, or has not been tested:
The Constitution gives the "power of making rules" to the House and Senate. The court and RNC have no say on that. If the RNC think this is not a "good thing" then they should have changed the rule -- they didn't do that. This is a problem for the RNC. They are stupid.
Supreme Court: 506 U.S. 224 Click ]
Backup: 506 US 224 [ Click ]
506 US 224 shows the Supreme Court will defer to the House Rules, here is the relevant language:
The deference that is owed can be found in the Constitution itself
. . .
C. This has been tested with the 1903 effort against Swayne. This is the precedent and the counter-argument against those who claim, "What is going on -- this is unprecedented." The only thing that is new is that the 1903 precedent is applied to the President, not the Court.
Here's an important case, when considering discovery or other issues which the White House is likely to use to avoid discovery/access to information.
418 U.S. 683 [Presidential Privilege is trumped by the needs of evidence/discovery]
Overall: Keep in mind the legal team you're up against -- the same goons that have "justified" war crimes. They are very nasty; so know their legal arguments are non-sense. Don't let them intimidate you. They are war criminals. Never forget that.
Here's the fun part. This is what people in America are saying as an excuse to do nothing.
Overall, the arguments are frivolous.
We simply outline the phony arguments, and explain why they are non-sense.
You can expect these from anyone, not just the RNC. We saw this in Vermont -- people who were in the DNC who were trying to "help" were saying, "Let's do nothing."
Here are some examples of what sometimes the RNC exploits to cause confusion.
Remember, while you work your way through this, the precedent of Swayne has already been set. The issue is how to correctly incorporate the Swayne Precedent -- which recognized the Section 603 state proclamation option -- and the House rules into the language of the proclamation.
Here are some sample excuses, all of them irrelevant, moot, and contrary to public policy and clearly established precedent:
Incorrect, the Hinds precedent is clearly established: The Swanye Case of 1903 relied on this method. Judge Swayne was on the Federal District Court in Florida, and was impeached using House Rule 603. [ Ref ]
How to find it:
A. Choose This link: B.  Choose Hinds Volume III;  Enter 2469 at the box;  Select Submit C.  Look for: Hinds Precedents -- Volume III] Chapter LXXVIII  Choose Chapter LXXVIII -- then  select either text or Pdf to view the file
Each Chamber of the Congress are given the power through Article 1 Section 5 to make and enforce their own rules; and Nixon v US [ 506 U.S. 224 ] affirms that the Courts have no role on whether the rules are or are not Constitutional. The RNC has no standing to challenge these rules.
It forces the Congress to face this issue, and all other business ends. The searchlight will shine directly on the President. [ Note: 418 U.S. 683 trumps the President, and compels discovery of information the President says is "privileged" or has refused to provide in re Phase II. ]
Nonsense, the 1903 Swayne precedent clearly is an approved interpretation. The rules behind the Swayne case are still part of the 109th Congress House rules and clearly state in Section 603 what is permissible. The Courts have no role in the rules. Nixon v US [ 506 U.S. 224 ]
The Courts have no role. The House rules are clear in providing the States this option. The RNC has no standing in the courts to challenge the House Rules of the 109th Congress. [ Nixon v US [ 506 U.S. 224 ] ]
Incorrect. The Jefferson's Manual Section 603 is part of the House rules of the 109th Congress. Nixon v. US already affirmed that the House has the power to make rules, and the Supreme Court cannot override those rules. [ Nixon v US [ 506 U.S. 224 ] ]
[ Ref ]
Jon Brandt, spokesman for the Committee on U.S. House Administration, said it is the duty of the House Parliamentarian to interpret Jefferson's Manual. "That would be the (interpretation) that really counts," he said. Brandt said the House Parliamentarian has reviewed the matter. "You do not start an impeachment process by introducing a resolution," Brandt said.
If Yarbrough's joint resolution passes and is sent to the U.S. House, "it would be considered a communication from whatever governmental agency adopted it" and given to the Judiciary Committee, he added. "It would not trigger any formal proceedings," Brandt said.
Bob Bennett, professor of constitutional law at Northwestern University School of Law, said Yarbrough's resolution is unusual, if not historically unique. "I doubt there are seven people in the United States who have thought of the applicability of Jefferson's Manual," Bennett said.
. . .
"This is uncharted territory," he continued. "There's nothing in the Constitution that gives state legislatures any particular standing with regards to starting an impeachment process." Whether or not Jefferson's Manual has any authority is up to debate. "I don't know if the Congress has ever passed some resolution that states, 'We will be bound by the Jefferson Manual of Procedure,' " Bennett said. "If it had been done, it would be embarrassing, I suppose, to ignore it."
No matter how many links you give the media, they still have readers who can't figure out how to use them.
Jefferson's Manual is part of the House Rules, and 109th Congress. The RNC has approved these rules.
The Supreme Court has no say in the matter. The Nixon V. US court case recognized/affirmed/reminded us that the Constitution, not the Court is the source of the Congressional power to make rules.
1. Sample issue: Unable to find the 603
They argue that the Jefferson's manual doesn't include this. They may cite the Senate Version, which isn't the correct reference. The correct reference is this link.
Note something very important, but what may seem to be trivial. In Vermont there was some discussion about the section 603. Go back to this link, and skip to page 2.
Notice on the left side there is the section 603. However, notice the type face is a different size. In Vermont, they got hung up on this -- arguing to the effect, "The original Jefferson's manual didn't have this language . . .and the notes were by a legislative staffer."
Either way, the House rules for the 109th Congress -- which we are working under in 2006 -- includes this provision. At this point, it doesn't really matter what you call it: The bottom line is that this link specifically mentions the Hinds precedent, going back to the Swayne Case.
Here is the citation: by charges
transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) [Page 2]
These rules cite 2469, which is the precdent of Swayne. [ Ref ]
For your reference, here is the link at the Cornell Law -- if you go to page 3, you'll see the similar issue: Two different fonts.
The point is that these rules -- as they were used in 1903 -- did link/combine  an impeachment,  a state proclamation, and  a vote in the Congress. What words you use to get there is for the state legislators to argue over.
Bottom line: Figure out how to do this, and quit making excuses. They did it in 1903. What's going on that we can't do this in 2006? Anything we're told is merely an excuse. And that's the very problem Congress has: Excuses.
The point is that despite the precedent, Vermont got sidetracked on whether the wording of the Resolution was or was not correct, they got hung up on whether the proclamation was or was not correctly citing the Jefferson's Manual. Either way, people know what you're talking about; and on top of that: You can amend the proclamation later to correct it. Recall, the President's action on the bill related to the Senate-House appropriations -- there's an issue of technicality, and a minor error. It relates to a Medicare appropriation issue.
The point is if there's an error -- and it has to be word-smithed to correct it -- that can be done: Adjusted. But don't make the "confusion over what to do" the excuse to do nothing!
The point: Figure out a way to make it happen, and do what was done in 1903: Use a state proclamation to tell the Congress to confront this impeachment issue of the President.
Yes, there is no precedent for using this procedure with a President; but there's always a first time. Do you see any rule that says that is not allowed? I don't. So, it's time to test this. If we get a court ruling back saying, "Not allowed," then we need to figure out a new way to do what was done in 1903: Force a vote -- up or down -- on the issue of investigation; and even if there is no agreement in the House Judiciary Committee -- as was with the Swayne Case -- then we need to see what has to be done to ensure that the lack of agreement in an RNC-controlled House Judiciary can duplicate what happened in 1903: Namely, despite no agreement of what happened after the Swayne investigation, how do we force the House to vote -- up or down -- in 2006, before the election on the results of that likely-non-agreed-to-investigation, as was done with the Swayne Case in 1903.
For reference here's the 106th Congress rules also mentioning the Swayne Case: [ Click ]
Also, here's is the GPO access, clearly listing the Jefferson's Manual section. [ Click ]
Look for this:
. . . [Scroll to that end of the section]
SEC. LIII. -- Impeachment Text 46K
PDF 79K 313-330
Hit the text link: [ Click ]
Look at the first paragraph of the Illinois Bill: [ Click ]. If this is a sticking point, and you decide to change it, here are some thoughts on what the language might say:
Editorial: Who's suddenly concerned about the law in 2006?
I find it absurd that a nation -- that has for so long ignored the rule of law -- is now getting worked up about something that is clearly in the House rules.
Where were these lawyers when it came to the issue of the law? The law wasn't given much attention before; it's absurd that they're showing up now saying, "Hay, the laws and rules say . . ."
Get real! You know what we're talking about. How dare you lecture the world and American citizens on "what the rules and law say" -- you've ignored them. It's too late in the game to start saying, "We have to get this right."
You've had more than 6 years, and all you've done is ignore the law. And you've permitted this Medicare Bill to continue to be the foundation for funding despite a "technical issue."
The RNC has no credibility at this point talking about "technicalities."
The rules and precedent are there: The question is -- does this precedent in the House Manual of 2006, 109th Congress apply to the President.
The fact that we "don't know" isn't a reason to do nothing -- rather, it's time to force the issue: What excuse are they going to give to not permit the Constitution be protected.
Let's find out; and if it's "impossible" we can change the rules to make it work.
Do not use the "maybe it won't work" argument as the excuse to do nothing. Hey, we've got a Congress that is doing nothing -- let's try something else. If this doesn't work, we'll try something else.
If someone wants to say, "Hay, Jefferson's manual doesn't say this. . ." then ask them, "How do you explain the 1903 House vote in Swayne which relied on this rule?"
They may be in power, but they cannot rewrite history. It doesn't particularly impress me when we have a clear precedent -- Swayne, 1903 -- using this rule, but we have a chorus of people saying, "It can't be done."
Despite what is possible, you're being cow-towed into doing . . . [wait for it] . . .nothing.
Your job is to figure out:
This has been done before with a sitting federal judge in a Florida District court; and the action occurred in a different place: In the District of Columbia. The same situation relates to the President -- he may be from Texas, but he's in DC.
If you need the country to realize, "These people in America aren't willing to assert the rule of law, and despite clear options refuse to assert them," then you really tell the world you are not really capable of self-government.
Rather, you're telling the President, "Despite you war crimes, we aren't going to stop you."
That is outrageous.
For those of you who want to get a taste of what is on the way -- if this nation refuses to assert the rule of law and get this Congress to face these issues -- we can make a new Constitution outside Article V: NO delegates, not state conventions, simply "We the people" saying "This is how things are going to be."
We can go down that route if you like. Here's what it might look like. [ CLick ]
Bottom line: You get this resolved, or we're going to resolve this.
This is ridiculous.
It's time to think about the Senate Rules.
Bluntly, the 1993 case is precedent for any challenges to what the Constitution says. You should fully expect this from this White House.
These are from blogs. They surfaced in the wake of the Illinois Announcement.
Not designed to capture everything, just give you a good taste of the non-sense.
You'll see that the "formal" excuses to do nothing -- in Vermont -- are surprisingly similar to what the blogs are saying.
[Note: This is going to be updated, and better organized in the future. Check back]
The information below relates to the specific arguments people are using in the media and blogosphere.
None of these arguments is "good or bad" -- rather, they are what the White House -defenders are using.
It is the job of American citizens to evaluate these arguments, and see whether they do or do not have any merit.
Our goal in providing these arguments is to put them on the table, and let your state prepare for the likely excuses.
C. Discussion on that point as it relates to House Rule Section 603 and State proclamations.
Argument: It will get buried in Committee [ Click ]
Risk: Whether the RNC controlled Congress can bury the State proclamation
1. The issue of "high privilege" means that the Congress has to face this. They can't "bury it". Rather, the 603 resolution can tell the Congress, "You have to vote on this." Even if they reject the bill -- by voting it down -- that is still good information: It is before the election; and it will tell the public that despite the war crimes Congress isn't going to do anything. This is a risk to the RNC in the November 2006 election
2. Second, the precedent from Swayne tells us that a proclamation which asks Congress to investigate is something that State can do. whether Congress completes the investigation is irrelevant. The issue is that the public will know prior to the November 2006 election whether the Congress is serious. Inaction, or "burying the action" -- after the vote to do nothing -- will be a clear signal to Americans: These people are not serious about a Constitution.
I thought this blog really well captured some of the opposition
1. Provides a red herring on the Manual, but incorrect cites the language in Section 603, appealing to ignorance. This can be addressed with proper citations.
2. Changing the focus form the President to the States. The issue is the President's violations of the law.
3. Repeats the myth that a political slogan -- of the election -- is going to be remedied with an impeachment. Actually, the issue is whether the President's conduct is or is not going to get the needed Congressional attention.
4. Incorrectly states that the issue can get buried. Rather, the Congress has to do something -- they can't throw this under the rug and take no action.
5. Overstates the implications of this action, incorrectly stating that the States will strip the President of all power to protect us. this is absurd; rather, this bill simply asserts the rule of law, and requires the Congress to face the issue: Is this President who is a war criminal fit to remaining office. If Congress says, "Yes," then the people can remove those who assent to this rebellion against the rule of law.
The Senate doesn’t use Jefferson’s manual, but the House has it as supplementary to their standing rules. My review of Jefferson’s Manual, especially the relevant portion (section 53), however, reveals no such language. Where is section 603?
Either way, I would say that we that this lawmaker has become somewhat unhinged by her hatred, but the reasoning behind her impeachment drive is sound, according to the article linked above: “This president has acted like an emperor.” It’s the “BushLied™ to invade Iraq, BushSpied™ for political gain” line.
The resolution will go to the House Judiciary Committee, where I assume the staff will be directed to file it in the bin; but imagine if this were to succeed. In January of 2009, President Kucinich would inherit an office bereft of its Constitutional powers. Ref
Overall, the above comment well captures the type of argument you're going to hear: Change subject raise doubts, and make it look like the system of checks and balances is undermined.
They're going to say that this effort gets in the way of the President’s powers and duties. That is absurd: The Constitution permits the President to wage lawful war; and at the same time includes provisions to impeach the President for crimes.
We can wage lawful war abroad, and also lawfully assert the rule of law at home. The Constitution applies whether we are or are not waging illegal war.
There is no merit to any argument that "We need to wage illegal war abroad, so we don’t have time to assert the rule of law at home." That is legal fiction, and that absurd notion is what inspires the world to not simply detest Americans, but actively support lawful combat operations to make Americans assent to their international obligations, agreements, and treaties.
If Americans do not make this society assent to the rule of law, other nations may lawfully intervene to remedy this issue.
I'm taking this one out of context, but the point is not lost: Some are arguing that the State level impeachment effort has missed the point, and now is not the time to do this because of the "big enemy".
we have actual enemies who actually want to see us all – Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, libertarian and statist [stet] – dead. Our Constitution empowers our chief executive to take action to stop this. Ref
The issue before us is whether we are a nation of laws; that someone is or is not doing something does not make our laws evaporate nor can they be ignored.
We can argue all day long over what the world may or may not do. Our job is to ensure we do what we are supposed to do: follow the laws.
This President has used the "we're at war" and "those guys are trying to kill us" argument as the excuse to violate our laws. That's not allowed.
Rather, Congress has deluded itself to do nothing, mandating that the states act. There is no merit to the argument that "because Congress has done nothing" or "what may or may not happen in Ohio athletic stadiums" that we should also stand by and do nothing while our laws are ignored and violated.
It is correct to point out that this President is acting like a king; and is an error to assent to violate of the laws and our rights simply because of "some big scary thing." We are not let secure, rather we have our homes invaded without warrant -- we have neither liberty nor security. Rather we have the illusion of security, so long as we are told to be quiet about the violation of our rights.
The solution is to remove this President lawfully from office and find people who are willing to wage lawful war, not on the back of a myth about 9-11. This government knows full well who in the US placed the explosives inside the WTC. The solution isn't to turn outward; but to turn inward and hold those in the US government responsible for what they failed to stop and actively supported before Sept 2001.
Part of the "doom and gloom" is to say, "Well the Senate will never . . ."
That's the point: Despite the overwhelming evidence, if the Senate isn't willing to remove this man from office, then the Senators should lose their seats in November.
This 603 effort is designed to force Congress to vote -- up or down -- where they stand, and then give voters information: Are they the right people to have in office?
Even if the Senate does nothing, this is important information. That's what the 603 effort is all about: Forcing Congress to commit, "This is where we stand on the rule of law."
Then the voters can make the changes in November to fix things, either with changes in the leadership or a new Constitution that forces them to do what they refuse to do: Assert their oath, and protect this Constitution from this and future war criminals in the White House.
Yes, you have a draft New Constitution Click, and other options to transform the Senate. There's another nifty trick: We can change the Constitution without a Constitutional Convention; Article V only applies to the government.
This is the wild card in this entire "Congress likes to do nothing about war criminals in the White House."-issue.
This isn't our problem -- it's their problem: We can change the Constitution to make them do what they refuse. With a New Constitution, here's what the Senate could look like if they don't wake up and do their job: [ Click ]
Here's an outline of what a New Constitutional Convention might look like -- Click remember, we don't have to follow Article V, we could simply write a new Constitution, and then put it up for a vote.
If you want to have an up or down vote on the New Constitution, then here's what the New Constitution might look like: [ Click ]
Here's what the RNC is going to do: Keep saying, "This is unprecedented." Actually, what the RNC is admitting is that they have no clue how this was done inside their own party, how it was coordinated, or why they are blindsided.
There's one simple answer: Criminals in the RNC are stupid and not fit to be leaders. America needs a new leader in the White House. This one is a snake and a criminal and cannot be trusted with power.
Table of Contents: [ CLick ]
Post Resolution Passage
One of the more interesting discussions is the opposite: Namely, once the resolution arrives in the House, the House could vote -- right then -- on each of the allegations in the Illinois bill. [Click [ Ref ] ]
Again, we'll have to see how the House manages this:
Let's assume that at some point, the House RNC realizes that this is going to happen: If they do not support it they'll lose, so they vote to support it. It remains to be understood whether the State Proclamation -- which includes the charges -- would then trigger fact finding; or whether this would immediately get launched into the Senate, and the House would have to organize its managers to present this to the Senate.
We're dealing with a timing issue here: How quickly will the Congress move on the proclamation, and what will physically happen in terms of gathering evidence, presenting it to the Senate.
Recall, the very objective of this proclamation is to do exactly what it is doing:
This is exactly what the state proclamation is designed to do: Make the President's job that much more difficult, and require him to publicly commit more crimes for the world to see. Then it will be self-evident: He is not fit to remain in office; and anyone who refuses to lawfully remove him from office is also not fit for office.
My view on the house manager role: Is they should have no fact finding time, and simply take the proclamation, present it to the Senate immediately, and force the Senate to face what we know about the NSA:
Then force the Senate to "do nothing" -- then use that "do nothing" response as the basis to throw them out of office this November 2006.
Again, the goal of this isn't simply to remove to lawfully remove the President -- it's to force both house of the federal and state legislatures to face these issues:
One thing to keep in mind is that the articles of impeachment do not have to be universally accepted. The House can still vote to support only some of the articles, and the rest can still get approved by the Senate. Here's one Judge who had only a few of the articles voted for, but the Senate still found him guilty. [ Click ]
More comments on why the arguments are frivolous and just excuses to do nothing.
Those days are over.
Other Variations of the Arguments
This thread offers some very interesting comments, which I'll only summarize in the form of RNC-like arguments:
The Constitution permits each house to make rules, as recognized in the Nixon Case. The Supreme Court has no say on whether the proclamation is or is not Constitutional. It is up to the House rules, as the Constitution clearly states under Article 1 Section 5. There is no issue of Constitutionality. Although the case may go to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has no basis to overrule the Constitution which clearly permits the House to make rule 603; if the RNC-controlled Congress did not want this, they should have changed the House Rule 603 which permits this action.
Irrelevant, the House rules in 2006 exist regardless what the RNC may or may not have a view about Jefferson.
The issues of high crimes and impeachable offenses is a significant issue, and all other business stops. The goal of this impeachment effort is to force the Congress to face these issues: What does the rule of law mean; and is the Congress willing to assert the rule of law.
What Bush has or hasn't done is only part of the issue. The broader issues related to whether the Congress and people are serious about self-government. Whether there is or isn't enough evidence to sway the Senate remains to e seen.
This action will force the Congress to face what it refuses to face: What is the Constitution; what is self-governance; and what does the rule of law mean. That the Congress has been dissuaded from taking action is irrelevant. The states are fully prepared to act.
Even if this Illinois resolution is defeated, the other 49 states can move to act. In other words, each time the Congress refuses to act, it sill get easier to get more states to step up to the plate. Each of the citizens in the 50 states are going to ask, "We could do something, but this leadership isn't -- is our state leadership really what we need?"
That is the central purpose of this: For the locals in each state to ask before the 2006 election -- who do we have in office, are they serious about their oath, and who would better leaders be?
The RNC has the option to investigate Clinton, and impeached him. What Bush and Clinton did in their respective Presidencies has no bearing on whether they did or did not violate the law. If someone has violated the law, then the Senate needs to decide whether they should remain in office. If the Senate says that a war criminal in "just find" to have as President, then those Senators are not fit to be leaders.
The Congress has failed and the States have to move.
It's part of the House Rules and in the 109th Congress rules which the RNC currently controls and has not changed or modified.
It will be a black eye for those in power who refuse to assert the rule of law.
They had the vision to provide options to ensure the rule of law prevailed.
"I tend to believe that state governments have their own problems and need to have them fixed before even thinking about interjecting itself into another more supreme governing body." Ref
Despite the theoretical possibility of time machines, we have no change to the 109 House rules. Section 603 of the 109th Congress recognizes this option. What Jefferson may or may not have done; or how others may or may not have been able to influence him with a time machine is not relevant: We can only go on the basis of the existing rules which this RNC controlled Congress fully supports. What may or may not have changed Jefferson’s mind over 200 years ago is meaningless; and we find no textual reference within the Constitution that recognizes a right of anyone who operates at time machine to so affect the house rules. If such a time machine did exist, then we should expect the existing House rule in section 603 to be something than what it is. The rule exists, it is real, and we find no evidence that anything that someone in 2006 might like to have done to Jefferson if they had a time machine to change his mind or "kick him in the rear" has any bearing on why the RNC controlled Congress has or has not changed section 603 permitting this state action.
The State can force the Congress to vote up or down. The Congress may chose to do nothing -- and that decision to do nothing is important information for the voters.
You are correct, the State assembly in Illinois cannot force the House to impeach; but they can make the Congress face the issue -- and when they chose to do otherwise, subject themselves to a major political defeat in November.
We have obvious violations of the law. If Congress will not face this issue, then the leaders in the Congress are not fit to be leaders. They are fit to be whining at home, and commenting on their sofas, "Back when I was in charge, we used to do nothing and get paid alot of money. Boy did we fool alot of people. Stupid Americans."
This reference misses the point. Yes, Congress may have an RNC majority; but the issue here isn't simply to remove the President; rather it's to force the Congress before the 2006 election to face the issue -- either confront the issue with a vote, or do nothing -- and that decision, whatever it is, will be valuable information for the voters.
At this point simply saying, "We do not approve" and forcing the Congress to say, "We are not going to do anything" is great progress: It is clear information, on the record, of where the Congress stands on the rule of law, their oaths.
The mere fact that this bill will land in the Congress and force Congress to do or not do something is much more than anything else that the Congress has done. Some in the RNC who see that the writing is on the wall, and the DNC may likely take over the House, could be convinced to say, "If I do not vote to impeach, I may lose my seat."
This argument is a classic RNC scare tactic that makes no sense and should be expected. It implies that those who assert the rule of law will have consequences. That may be true -- so let's get it on the table -- are the voters convinced to vote for people who are criminals? Then other states may take action to impeach those officials as well. Go ahead, if you think that "ignoring the law" is OK, you have to worry: "what are the other states going to do" when some states continue to violate the law. The answer is: Other states can force your state to meet your obligations.
There is no credible argument that there will be any backlash against the DNC for asserting the rule of law. Rather, this is a phony RNC argument that should be thrown back at the RNC: You use this argument because you know you have no credible defense of a war criminal in the White House.
The issue of the Prosecutor is interesting. What this proclamation does is stirs up the pot, and makes people in the RNC less confident that they're going to escape consequences. Rather, we've already seen a shuffling in the White House.
Again, the change in staff is what is needed: As you rotate people around, the RNC and White House are at a disadvantage: People who are no longer "on the inside" are less likely to be quiet about what was going on, especially when they face a real prospect of an indictment and conviction as does Libby.
Overall, the issue of Fitzgerald is curious. The state level impeachment effort -- if timed correctly -- can arrive at the very time before critical information arrives and surfaces. Again, this is by design: The Congress when it gets this new information may say, "Well we didn't know this before, but this is really bad."
Again, if the Congress refuses to act, there will be other state level proclamations; and there will be more evidence; at the same time there will be additional White House cover-ups and violations of the law. IT is only getting worse: As the evidence piles up, the likelihood of more proclamations rises. The problem is that this is happening before the November 2006 election.
Actually, this 603 research was done by members of the Republican Party who realize that the President is a war criminal, and the Congress is lazy, and that the American public deserves to have some better options on the table. This information is being provided to other members of the RNC, and the American public.
But seeing as how John Conyers has already introduced one, it would seem these calls by misguided state legislators with dreams of grandeur are nothing more than grand-standing.
Which brings us back to Ms. O’Malley’s article. In it, she calls on other NoCal “progressives” (I guess they aren’t pround [stet] of being liberal) to co-sponsor the Koretz amendment.
We already tried this in the RNC-controlled Congress, so your argument fails.
My question is why only call on “safe Blue States?” Do you liberals have no conviction? If you feel so strongly about this issue, then why not call on liberals in Orange County, California; anywhere in Nebraska; or Bentonville, Arkansas to come out for this? Until you do that, you prove this pipe dream is nothing but, and you show that your side does not have that “50-state” appeal which your leader strives for. Then again, you do live in Berkely [stet]. [Click ]
Rather, your argument is more of the, "How come you didn't exhaust all the options that didn't work before you tried something that would work." That's why you're in the RNC: You're stupid.
Actually, we have the precedent of Judge Swayne and the House rules, so there's every reason to believe we can forecast what is going to happen:
It is incorrect that we "have to wait" until November; rather, the resolution -- and the rest of what Congress does -- has to be done before November; thus, there's no merit to this argument that we "have to wait" until November:
the Democrats know that they’ll never get it passed in the Republican-dominated House. That’s why the November election looms large at the moment. As of this writing, we can’t find any reliable authority to tell us what the consequences of the state legislatures’ passing these resolutions might be. It doesn’t seem likely that the U.S. House of Representatives would be out of the picture altogether, but it would at least give Congress members something to think about.Ref
If enough of the RNC wake up, they may realize that if they refuse to support the impeachment, they're going to lose their seats. The November election does not loom large: This state proclamation effort looms larger.
As to what the "consequences" of a state level impeachment might be, we have plenty of history from the Swayne case: The House was forced to deal with tie issue.
Rather than what this might do for Congress in terms of what they "think" about, this proclamation will force the voters to think:
The argument that "it is too hard" to change the Constitution is non-sense. That requirement is only applicable for government action. We can change the Constitution outside Article V, and mandate the Congress act by passing a more adversarial Constitution that makes it a felony for members of Congress to appropriate funds for illegal wars; and attaches personal liability for failing to assert their oath of office when it comes to matters of law enforcement, protecting the Constitution, or ensuring that illegal wars are not funded. [See more about the range of changes that the public can make outside a State Constitutional Convention: Ref ]
Any chance is better than what this Congress has given us: Zero. We'll only really find out "what may happen" once it's actually done. In the meantime, we'll have to watch how the respective "leaders" in the 50 states and Congress handle this issue:
This effort will give us 100% chance of the following:
OK, so now you see that the arguments against doing this really don't add up.
So, let's look at what the RNC is doing. They have what is called "combination-arguments" -- this is an absurd statement, and then they change the subject.
Here’s an example:
Part 1: Absurd question: Does anyone seriously think an impeachment will actually happen?
Congress will never vote to impeach Bush. This is simply another waste of tax payer money. Why not focus on more important things like the fact that Iran stated it is willing to share nuclear technology with its neighbors.
Part 2: Change Subject: BTW, did anyone hear that CA wants to build a child care facility for its women's prison; so pregnant inmates can take care of their kids while in prison. Now tell me, why should I have to pay for that?
Notice what's happening: They change the subject from whether or not the state is or isn't doing this -- which it is, can, and is lawful -- and focus on an absurd question; and they ignore the issue: That by forcing the Congress to face the issue, Congress before the 2006 election will have to vote up or down, given the voters the information needed to make a better decision: Who would we rather have in Congress.
Notice also, they change the subject from the impeachment, to another issue. This is a classic change. Notice they haven't discussed their problem -- the fact that the RNC is in a no-win situation -- and they diver the debate to another issue. This is a classic combination of "Absurdity, diversion."
The enter objective of this approach is to deflect the focus form the issues:
This is one of those "friend of the court" arguments that throws a wet towel on their allies.
This is known as a "helping troll": someone who goes out of their way to say why things can't happen, raising doubts, and lists a long list of things of "why things can’t happen."
Notice the following, they:
It will never fly, of course. I don't know whether or not it will make it out of the Illinois General Assembly -- both houses are Democrat held, but I'm not sure that either would be comfortable voting this out, nor am I sure that the governor would sign the resulting law (if he's even required to do so). Any successful law would also require the US House, controlled by the president's party, to actually act on this resolution, and that I cannot imagine them doing. Even if the House swings back to the Democrats after midterm elections, it likely would not act -- and given the Democrats' studied reluctance to capitalize on any of the various scandals or crises during the campaigns and their studied lack of any sort of message or position on any issue whatsoever, I can't imagine that they'll gain more than maybe one or two seats in either chamber, so it's not as though they'll be able to do anything anyway.Ref
The above is absurd:
1. It argues on the basis of ignorance: The governor is not involved din a Joint Resolution, as is permitted under the House rules;
2. Would have us believe that "because nothing can be done" that we should continue do nothing -- this is absurd, it asks us to believe that "we are stuck with what hasn't worked"; on the contrary, if despite these options, Congress refuses to assert the rule of law, we can assert our right outside Article V to draft a New Constitution. [ Details ]
3. Appeals to ignorance, and fails to see that the very inaction they speak of could very well tip the balance at the November election;
4. Would have us believe that "a long track record of inaction in the wake of war crimes, abuse of power, and impeachable offenses will result in more inaction" -- that's absurd: Clearly, the fact that the states are speaking out shows us that the tide has turned, and people are not willing to accept "whatever happens, happens"-approach.
Again, the point of the above isn't to throw stones at the particular bloggers. Rather, the purpose is to give you a flavor of what the Vermonters faced -- and despite the non-sense, caved in and refused to act.
Get ready for the non-sense:
Rather, the objectives should be:
Yes, this will force Congress -- and the voters -- to face the issue. [ Click ]
When people say, "this won't work," or "it will never happen" have to ask: What isn't working; and what is "it" that won't happen? This proclamation forces something to work: Attention, and the agenda get changes. Now the people -- the voters and Members of Congress -- are focusing on something they have refused to consider: That this President can be called to account; and the voters can find new leaders who are willing to force the rule of law to prevail. [ Ref ]
Congress lost the power to set the agenda
The Congress may whine about "their timetable," but the real agenda -- the Constitution -- has long been ignored. Congress has lost the power to decide what the agenda will be. The Sates are now reminding them what needs to be put on the top of the agenda. This Congressional leadership in both parties has failed: They refused to speak out, nor did they ask the public to mobilize. Where are the Federal Level Members of Congress speaking on this issue? They are silent because they know that they are the problem, and that the public -- not the "leaders" -- are the ones that are making this happen. [ Ref ]
Now that you've read the above examples, you're in a position to analyze something form the RNC.
Let's consider what we've learned. Here are some tactics:
This is what the RNC says
Your turn, draft a response that discusses why this should proceed.
Here's the RNC statement:
Jim Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, decried the impeachment resolution, calling it a purely partisan maneuver with little, if any, benefit for Vermonters.
"Instead of focusing on the real priorities and needs of the people of Vermont — like affordable health care, property tax relief, college scholarships and good paying jobs — Democrats in the Legislature continue to consume themselves with partisan fantasies of impeaching the president, raising the gas tax, and banning the cropping of dogs' ears."Ref
Sample response: See if you can do better than this . . .
We can still wage lawful war abroad while we assert the rule of law at home. Asserting the rule of law is what all thinking Americans want. The rule of law is what is at the basis for our society.
The impeachment proclamation is needed. Congress has failed. The RNC has failed. The RNC is not serious about its oath of office. Rather, they would rather support illegal wars than accountability.
The real priority for all of the country is the Constitution. The trivial matters the RNC points to are just distractions. Since when is the RNC actually serious about anything? They don't are about the basic principles like law and order; any claim they make about "important issues" -- all the while ignoring the most fundamental priority, the Constitution -- is simply absurd.
The RNC is not the source of accountability, the rule of law, or any credible defense of our Constitution. The RNC also knows that the game is over. They're going to lose. They will lose the House. Nothing they can do will stop the country from asserting the rule of law with an impeachment. The issue is whether the RNC will relent now, or lose their seats in November.
Further, it doesn't matter whether the House does or does not vote to impeach based on a single resolution. Rather, the purpose of this action is to see what the Congress does -- whether it is serious about the rule of law.
The RNC should be outlawed, and swept into the waste heap of history. They remain a threat to the civilized world; and the RNC is not a serious basis to organize lawful action. Rather, they have violated the laws, they encouraged illegal invasions, and they remain delusional.
Note the comment: They call "things that are about the rule of law and Constitution" something that is "partisan." If this is true, then this means that the RNC -- by choosing lawlessness the RNC is making a partisan comment: "We would rather have war crimes, destroy the Constitution, and undermine the American system of laws, than pay attention to our founding document.
Bully Pulpit well captures the essential problem: There's little understanding of what this is really all about -- it's not about forcing the result; it's about starting the process, forcing the Congress to vote up or down before the November 2006 election.
BOld has been added, not in original
Here, as if we needed more, is yet another example of why liberals should not be allowed to run around loose without adult supervision.
Jefferson's Manual is used as an addendum to the US House standing rules, I'm not sure how that relates to the actual rules. In any case, all section 603 says is that the House may institute impeachment proceedings on "charges transmitted from the legislature of a State." There is no compunction in the regular rules, nor in Jefferson's Manual for the House to do anything with these charges. We can safely assume Dennis Hastert would (and will) round-file this resolution if and when he gets it. There is nothing in the manual about a "joint resolution." Representative Yarbrough needs to stay away from her crack pipe before drafting any resolutions in the future.
If Bush is going to be impeached, which is not likely before next year, if at all, it needs to be done in accordance with the rule of law and not under the auspices of what some idiot legislator in Illinois who is mentally still in high school "feels" is the procedure.Ref
The point is that the American public do not need to wait, but they can start working at their local levels now to test whether elected officials are or are not serious about the rule of law.
It may be true that Congress doesn't do anything -- but that's important news for Americans: Despite exhausting all efforts, the American leadership refuses to assert their oaths of office, 5 USC 3331. They have put loyalty to man above the Constitutoin and are not fit to remain in office. They can either resign, or we can bring charges against them for violating their oath of office.
As to the "joint resolution" that's what a state legislature passes when the Governor does not sign the bill. It's merely the state level mechanism to pass a proclamation that is not a bill signed by the Governor.
Thank you for your comment.
Quick question for you: Why do you read Constant's blog? Didn't you hear the "big rumors" -- Constant is insane, crazy, and cannot be trusted with anything?
It's not impressive to find out "the community" is spreading lies; and at the same time people are playing stupid about what happened.
Read the first yellow box: [ Click ] Here are the details of this non-sense, which you'll see is strangely familiar with what happened last year: [ Share this link with your friends: Click ] Question is -- who is feeding the board managers non-sense to have Constant consistently banned for no good reason?
All I know is its hypercritical for people to knock Constant; and then claim credit for things Constant has done. "We don't have enough time to get organized, so we'll call our confusion and disorganization something that is a positive."
Make a committee for that: DBD Squad -- Disorganization By Design. Oh, did I say that?
Here's the deal: I can keep posting the information and ideas. But it's going to get harder for you to find things, or have direct answers. I don't believe you're serious with your questions. Rather, I get the impression -- by the actions of "the community and your peers" [whatever that means] -- that people like to whine about problems, but aren't really interested in having an honest answer, solutions.
When they get called on it, they create non-sense to make it "everyone else's problem." Hay, quit your non-sense.
It's more outrageous to be encouraged to provide inputs, comments, and do things; then have that later rebuked. That's just stupid. Again, you'll have to hit this link to see the non-sense going around.
I'm not impressed. Let your peers know the "pleas for help" or the "woe is me" attitude after the "various failed efforts" are no longer swaying me to jump in with suggestions, ideas, or contributions. You guys do an excellent job at burning bridges with people who simply are responding to what you are publicly discussing.
Now you can understand why people are reluctant to embrace "your leadership" -- you have no credibility: You trash those who respond; and you are hypocritical. Don't be jerks like these people.
Big Picture, and let's consider the 603 Effort: This is going to be a national issue. That's it. It doesn't matter who or what started this; the issue is that local citizens know they can stand up to the war criminals in the White House. It's up to the locals to decide what to do.
If someone is going to say, "We don't want to get involved with this" -- despite the national communication, discussion -- then they're missing the opportunity: To attach themselves to a national issue, and use this issue as the means to connect with what locals really value: The Constitution, law, rule of law, and respect for civility. These are core values at the heart of jobs, family, and community.
It's stupid to say, "We're going to let the 603 effort be left to someone else" or "that's someone else's issue" -- that’s the very "we are too good/we don't want to get involved/we can't take advantage of solutions/plans"-approach that detests people.
Get real: The point with the 603 effort is that every state and community will soon be taking a position on this -- either for or against -- and the news media will be all over this. It's stupid to say, "We're not going to get involved" while at the same time saying, "Woe is us, we have no media relations, or thinkers, or consultants." Hey! It's all been given to you. And the fact that you can't/won't take advantage of this opportunity all the more impresses people that you're stupid, and not fit to lead.
That's the point of the 603 effort: To find out who has their head on straight, who is committed to the Constitution, and who is willing to lead. Whether you do or do not "accept this proposal or not" is irrelevant. This is a litmus test. Your conduct says, "We aren't going to be smart." Fine, then you're not fit to lead.
Thank you for your feedback.