Constant's pations

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

Sunday, April 02, 2006

New Constitution: Recognized State right to expand the sanctions beyond simply removal from office

The way forward is not to live in fear, but to force what we can to be free.

The threats need not continue. Rather, we can make it happen.

Responses to questions about this plan: [ The valid concern: Click; the plan, about which the concerns were raised: Click ]

Keep in mind these criteria: [ Whether Congress is really doing what it should Click ]

* * *

New Rules: Recognized State's Right to make new rules, lawfully imposing more adverse consequences on a tyrant

There are reasonable questions. Will a plan force us to recognize something new. No, it will simply accelerate the timeline and make what is threatened happened earlier. The waiting is getting old. It is time to make him do what he alludes to. Then we can proceed to do what we need to do: Start over with a New Constitution.

There are doubts as to whether this is wise. We are not free when we live in fear. It would be better to force the outcome that is certain, than remain fearful of what may happen sooner or later.

There are questions. As the states move to confront the Executive along this plan, some have asked why will this work: The executive does not respect states rights. That is the point: It will be clear that we need new rules. He may ignore the rules, but this does not mean that we can't make new rules which impose more severe sanctions.

Yes, we can write a New Constitution. We can make a rule that permits the States to pass ex post facto laws when faced with the snake of tyranny in the Legislature and Executive.

The States will either recognize what we have, or face it when they confront the Executive: He refuses to recognize limits on his power. That does not mean that the plan is meaningless. Rather, it means we should make new rules to force him to assent to the rule of law, or face new sanctions that are outside what he currently believe is the limit.

This is the principle of reciprocity. He does not recognize the limits of his power; we need not recognize the limits of our agreement. Where he moves beyond what is written in the law, so too may we impose sanctions beyond what he believes to be the law.

The current rules are no deterrent. Those who defy the laws and make them irrelevant, can no longer rely on that law for protection. We can make new rules that permit there be more consequences than simply removal from office.

Misconduct has consequences. Consequences should be linked with misconduct. This congress knows neither and does nothing. We have options. His leadership in defiance of the laws shows we need to write new rules that impose real consequences on tyrants, especially when they are well supported by the slithering snakes of tyranny in all branches of government.

He may wish for familiarity. Bush may wish he had the old system that recognized a simple remedy. He cant rely on rules from a system that he does not protect. Rather, we may create new rules that protects us.

* * *

There’s this curious issue of the Constitution. One argument is that if the President doesn’t respect states rights, then we really can’t expect anything to be done to challenge the President.

We can see what is going on. Isn’t the President effectively saying that he can ignore the Constitution when it comes to accountability? Why not call it what it is: He wasn’t to rely on something that he’s thrown in the trashcan.

Can the President rely on something that is in the trash? No, because we can put a lid on it, and call him on his bluff:

  • Bush wants to ignore the constitution. Let’s do that.

  • Bush threatens to ignore the Constitution.. Let’s do that.

  • Bush says he’s going to ignore the laws. Let’s do that.

    Why not remove what he ignores. Let’s trash the constitution, and start over with a New One. Bush says we have to preserve what we have; but his actions show otherwise.

    * * *

    We can provide the leadership when others refuse to act. The Legislature has the power to lawfully remove the President. The Current Constitution limits the sanctions to removal from office. He may be found liable later in a civil court.

    We can change what is reasonable to expect. But if Bush has his way – effectively trashing the constitution and prompting the citizenry to draft a new one – what guarantee does Bush have that the New Constitution will contain the same protections?

    He does not guarantee us anything; so we need not guarantee him anything.

    Bush has made an error. By ignoring the law, he’s pushing Americans to create a New Constitution that ensures he has fewer protections.

    Bush ignores the laws on abuse. Yet he wants to rely on the laws to avoid accountability.

    * * *

    These are not normal times. Normally, the courts look at the law as it existed at the time. Bush doesn't want the law to apply, but he wants to change the law as he sees fit. Bush can’t have it both ways.

    We may do the same: We may ignore the agreements we've made, and make new laws as we deem fit. We can have it both ways. We are in charge, not tyrants.

    * * *

    We can move first. If Bush doesn’t recognize states rights, then let’s change the Constitution and have a new one. A New Constitution would be one that takes Congress out of the role of imposing justice, and we simply have a war crimes trial.

    We can call this snake what it is. Clearly, the threat of a political sanction is meaningless, especially when Congress has agreed to support this President’s rebellion.

    * * *

    We don’t need to put up with this silly game between Congress and the President. The Executive does more than threaten. He violates the laws. But Congress does nothing.

    It’s as if Bush wants to see how far he can go. I say, call him on his bluff and trash what he intendeds to trash. That way he no longer can threaten to do something. Rather, we are the ones that would have the right to craft a New Constitution.

    What’s he going to do – stop us from doing something we have always had the power to do?

    He can’t threaten anything more: He’s already done it and used illegal military force against American civilians.

    He can’t say that something might happen: He’s already ignored the laws and violated.

    At this juncture we’re simply talking about issue of degree. Let’s trump him. Quit waiting for this Constitution to be whittled away. Let’s trash it and start over. He’s shown he’s not interested in protecting it; so if we trash it, how can he claim that he wants to protect that document? He’s ignored it.

    By trashing it, we’ll do a number of things: We’ll take away his leverage. His threat will be meaningless. And we won’t have to sit and wonder what may happen. Rather, we can set the agenda, and tell him that we have new rules.

    We will set the timetable: It will start now. We do not have to wait until the election in November. We can tell Congress: This is what will happen unless you do your job. We mean it. And the President can no longer guarantee that the system he ignores will be there to limit his sanctions to merely removal from office.

    We can lawfully do other things. We could make the sanctions for war crimes a war crimes trial. They do things at war crimes trials other than simply removing someone from office. Is this what the President would prefer than the current system he defies? We can make a rule that permits us to change the rules when he changes rules without our permission.

    We can change to something better. Then he’ll wish he had the old constitution: Something that limited the Consequences to impeachment. Under a new Constitution we could make it a rule that we can lawfully try him when the President continues to violate the law, but the Congress refuses to hold him accountable. If he’s not willing to follow the laws of war or the laws of the land, then there’s no reason we should follow him or this Constitution.

    He a promise. We relied on that promise. He has failed.

    We can change the protections. If he’s not willing to protect this Constitution, why should we care whether he’s protected before the rule of law; or that the consequences are limited to removal from office? He doesn’t follow the law; and he refuses to respect the Constitution. We should lawfully reciprocate and write a New Constitution that imposes a meaningful consequence on the Executive for what he has done.

    We can make rules which change rules. We can make rules and laws which permit the people to lawfully permit an ex post facto law when it comes to the Executive. This could be a special rule that covers the Executive—turned dictator. It gives future generations the recognized right to ignore the laws – just as this Executive has done – and make new rules.

    We can change the sanctions. Bush ignores the laws; in turn, there is no reason we should respect the laws which limit is sanctions to what is in the Constitution.

    We can change the limits. Bush ignores the Constitution; in turn, there is no reason we should respect the limits of the Constitution.

    * * *

    Justice is based on clear rules. But where the clear rules are turned on their head, we need not see the Executive as standing up right. Rather, he has fallen down on the job. Nor can he say that the laws as they are written must be followed – he ignores them.

    Justice relies on the law. But this Executive does not rely on anything. Rather, he crafts new laws that are at odds with what we have in Our Constitution. Where he commits a violation and writes new laws, so too may we write new laws.

    The supreme loyalty is to the law. But when that loyalty does not exist, we need not show him loyalty or respect. The leader may not compel others to be loyal or show respect when he openly defies the laws and shows to respect for his promise. He cannot say that the laws as they exist must be respected – for he has ignored them.

    Justice and fairness cannot be one-sided. Rather it must be reciprocated. But this Executive does not recognize justice or fairness What Bush is doing is not fair; in turn, what we do should not be fair.

    Justice is designed to be predictable. The problem is when someone asserts justice, but in an unpredictable way. There is a law – under this system – that prevents changes to the law. Bush ignores this. Then let us lawfully reciprocate and make new rules that permit us to hold him to new standards.

    Justice relies on predictability. But this Executive is anything but that. Rather, he moves without regard to reason or order. We may reciprocate and be unpredictable in our New Constitution. In turn, we may lawfully reciprocate with our recognized right to make new rules and new laws – especially when they are no more predictable that this leader who ignores the laws at his whim.

    Justice recognizes lawful power. But this executive’s power is not recognized. He asserts the right and power – which we have not delegated – to make new rules that are at odds with the Constitution.

    Justice permits reciprocation. In cases where one abuses others in violation of the law, others may also ignore those laws. This is where we find ourselves. This Executive openly admits he uses the NSA as a military tool to not simply support war, but to use that tool against Americans.

    * * *

    If Bush does not like what may happen under a New Constitution, he should respect this one. He does not respect this one; so we should not care whether he does or does not like what should be done to him: Hold him accountable with a war crimes trial; and take congress out the equation.

    This President and Congress have taken the Constitution and rule of law out of the equation. Let’s call them on their bluff and end the Constitution as we have it, and start over with something that lawfully reciprocates on a dictator. He doesn’t respect or laws or rights; we should not respect his power or his love of liberty.

    To do anything less would assent to abuse. We are not slaves. We are people.

    Bush is a person. And his is abusive. We need not recognize his power, nor do we have to permit him to rely on rules he ignores.

    Time to strip away his power and change the rules. He may wish for the old rules he ignored, but that will be too late.

    His problem, not ours.