Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Philosophy of a New Constitution: Confronting the Senate

This note outlines where we are going.

We've already discussed the inevitable impeachment.

The issue is that the Senate is unwilling to do what is expected.

Rather, they craft non-sense.

The way forward is to apply this plan so that the States lawfully confront the Senate, and We the People tell the Senate: Assert the rule of law, or we are going to lawfully revoke your powers with a New Constitution.

The issue isn't whether the Senate does or does not feel like it. The issue is that given the Senate's assent to this rebellion, what is to be done.

We do not have to wait for an election. Rather, we can lawfully find the Senate to be in rebellion with the President against the Constitution; and we may lawfully craft a New Constitution that revokes the abused and non-asserted powers.

Also, we may craft new rules which compel the Senate to Act; and prevent the Senate from doing what they are doing: Engaging in malfeasance.

The Senate has a difficult job: Protecting the Constitution.

However, they were given powers to do this. The issue is the Senate refuses to do what they've been given the power to do.

The way forward is to accept what is going on, and find a solution.

* * *

The process is simple we shall lawfully destroy the Senate in a New Constitution

  • Change it

  • Impose new rules

  • Strip them of powers

    This process has already started

    The Senate is not fit to lead, cannot be trusted. The issue is that they are not interested. They obviously need to have something at stake to compel their interest. An oath to God to them is meaningless, they defy their oath, they prattle non-sense to avoid the law, and make up silly comments about whether or not there do or do not have the victims.

    The Senate leadership is bungling. Thy are not experts on the law. They are not judges. Rather, the real experts are the ones that they ignore; and permit the Executive to ignore.

    First things first, there is no requirement that victims be present when making a decision about whether or not there is a violation. Rather, if the law is violated, then that is a crime. This Senate spews forth non-sense as to whether or not people know about the violations. This misses the point. We are to be free of violations of our rights; whether we do or do not know about those violations is meaningless.

    The restriction is on government from violation or rights; We the People do not have the burden to prove anything. Ever. Rather, it is the job of government to prove that thy are not doing what they deny -- violating rights, abusing power, and refusing to hold themselves to the standard of the law.

    * * *

    A New Constitution is needed to strip the senate of all powers they refuse to assert, and deny them of any methods to assent to a presidential rebellion against the rule of law.

    A New Constitution is needed to delegate these powers to those who are more interested in doing what is needed: Enforce the right of the people to be free from abusive government.

    The Senate is no help. Despite a clear set of fact patterns which show this Executive is a war criminal, they change the subject. They pretend nothing is wrong.

    It's clear what the issue is: The Senate is wrong, they have joined this rebellion, and they fear the public is going to do what has already started: Strip them of their power to do what they are doing.

    It is too late. We already know. The process has already started.

    * * *

    It does appear that the Senate has agreed to remain silent; or not do what it should. IT remains unclear what agreements the senators have made to engage in this rebellion.

    There are clear solutions. They are in the Constitution. It is clear this Senate agrees to engage in conduct that is at odds with what it is designed to do: Solve problems to protect rights and prevent the abuse of power.

    Rather, the Senate has become simply a fourth institution of tyranny, the other three being the lazy judiciary, the incompetent House, and the self-evidently abusive Executive.

    Power must be used to check power. This Federal Government -- across all four institutions does the opposite -- it assents to each branch abusing power, not asserting power, and permitting power to be abused, and rights violated.

    This Federal Government has failed.

    We the People may lawfully craft a New Constitution to remind this lazy government what their job is: What is to be explicitly done and not done to ensure that rights are protected, and power is not abused.

    They have abused our trust. They have invaded our homes in violation of the law; they have held us without warrant; and they go on fishing expeditions for evidence. They have no basis to do what they are doing. They simply assert they are serving a "higher purpose."

    They are wrong. They have only one purpose: To destroy the constitution, and pretend it is the opposite.

    The voters can see the Senate is at odds with the rule of law.

    We need not wait until the election. We can craft a New Constitution and lawfully shove it down their throat.

    * * *

    Consider in general terms what happened after the Articles of Confederation were passed: Things did not quite work out.

    The Constitution we have today addresses these issues.

    Going forward, we must do the same: Identify what is wrong or not working; and crafter a New Constitution that addresses these issues.

    Congress is not simply part of the problem: They are the problem. They were given power to protect the Constitution. They have failed.

    The way forward is to learn the lessons of the Articles of Confederation; and identify how the problems of the day were addressed; then this approach must be applied to today's issues, forming the basis for a New Constitution.

    We will have general principles. Where the Senate refuses to act, it no longer has the power to act or not act; Where the Senate has a duty that is now a requirement.

    If the Senate chooses to avoid these changes, or assert that they have the power -- then they must use those powers.

    Yet, the story is the same: They claim to have power -- but they refuse to use it. That claim is meaningless.

    The way forward is to draft a New Constitution that will change the powers and makeup of the Senate. Whittle it down and transfer that abused and non-asserted powers to some other entity that is more interested in the rule of law, and less willing to join a President in rebellion.

    * * *

    The problem is simple. The Senate knows they will have to face the articles of impeachment. Rather than prepare for what is inevitable, the senators continue to act as a stonewall in the House.

    This is not appropriation. Senators do not have the power to interfere with the House or issues before the other chamber. What's needed is a better method to sanction and find the Senators have committed a felony when they engage in conduct that is actually the business of the other House.

    * * *

    The Senate has no power to engage in investigations on matters of impeachment. This is the exclusive power delegated to the House. Rather, the only role is for the Senate to review the evidence in the wake of this impeachment.

    Until then, it is not permissible for the senate to throw sand to the wind, in the hopes of dissuading the House from doing what it should do: Charge the President with a crime.

    The Senate also has no voice in impeachment. When hearing evidence they are to remain silent. This rule should apply to all matters related to the impeachment, not simply something that is isolated to the final trial in the Senate.

    * * *

    Some in the Senate believe that they have a right to speak on these matters. However, they also propose crafting rules which prohibit the public from speaking on matters which violate the law.

    If the public is going to be denied the right to speak, then the Senate shall have the right to speak also revoked.

    You cannot pass a law preventing the public from speaking on issues of public importance. It does not matter if the public is or is not informed. Rather, the purpose of debate is to find the answers; where there are no facts, we may make adverse inferences.

    Yet, this Senate is out of control. It not only engages in rebellion; but then it interferes with the House on whether the President should or should not be investigated.

    The Senate has no power to review or not review evidence related to impeachment or high crimes. Rather, this is the exclusive power of the House.

    Moreover, the Senate may also not threaten to pass a bill that makes it a rime to speak about crimes. Rather, it is the role of the senate to keep its mouth shut on matters related to impeachment.

    Even during the conviction phase, the Senate has no right to speak.

    Under a New Constitution we can clarify this. Where the Senate chooses to pass a law -- in contravention to the 1st Amendment -- making it a crime to speak of crimes; We the people may lawfully reciprocate by making it a crime for the Senate to speak on matters which on the House has the power to speak.

    You do not have the power to keep others silent. Rather, you may only speak on matters that you have been allowed to speak.

    We the People have also prevented you from speaking at the Conviction phase. We can make new rules that similarly ban you from uttering even a hint of anything that is an exclusive power of the House.

    * * *

    It doesn't matter what the Senate may or may not wish. They do not have the power to ratify illegal conduct; nor can they do the business of the House; nor can they keep the public silent on issues which the Senate refuses to review.

    Rather, under a New Constitution, those Senators who pass such legislation will have committed a felony: They know such a bill is not lawful; and the public shall have the right to bring charges and have a trial over a matter that is a violation of the law.

    Senators do not have the exclusive power to assent to tyranny or support rebellion. A reasonable Senator should know that the Senate is not up to the task. you have a leadership problem. Despite clear rules in the Constitution, you continue to ignore them.

    We can create a New Constitution that makes better, clearer rules, and also does the opposite: Specifically denies you the power to do what you should know you should not do. But rather than keep this as a matter of law or the Constitution, we can make this a matter of jail time.

    Just as the Senators are threatened with jail time if they speak during the Conviction phase, so too may Senators under a New Constitution be jailed if they assent to rebellion, refuse to take action, or attempt to make it appear "their view" on a matter of impeachment is relevant.

    Where you have no role, you have no power; nor may you deny the people the power to do what they always have the right to do: Speak on issues related to a new Constitution; and what is to be done to remedy what is broken.

    All laws which the senate passes which restrict the rights of the people -- in a manner that is not constitutional -- is the subject of a felony investigation.

    Your job is to ensure your bills do not infringe. You do not have the power to pass something that is not enforceable;.

    Rather, when you prevent the discussion of something that should be discussed, it is reasonable to find new ways to make adverse inferences -- not simply in discussing the issues, but for We the People to make adverse inferences of what is to be done, who is in rebellion, and what New Constitution is needed to protect our rights.

    * * *

    The way forward for all people is to explore the lessons of the Articles of Confederation. Then look at what was done to solve those problems.

    Today, we have the same problem: Things are not working. The way forward is to draft new Language that will address what has been ignored, abused, and violated: The Constitution, power, and our rights.

    The Senate does not have a voice in this matter. We the People may lawfully shove down their throats new rules in a New Constitution.

    The Senate had their chance. They chose to spew forth non-sense. Time is up. New leadership is required. This Senate leadership has failed.

    * * *

    Across the country and around the globe all people should know that the rule of law means something. The Senate can either enforce the law, or they can have the law enforced on them.

    This Senate, despite knowing that the Articles of Impeachment are coming, refuses to do what it should do during the Conviction phase: Remain silent.

    The way forward is to decide what the Senate must be compelled to do; what it must be prohibited from doing; what powers it needs to have revoked; and what felonies the individual Senators need to be charged with.

    We the people have the power to make ex post facto laws. We can make new rules which make it a crime to do what you have already done: Abuses power, violate rights, and assent to rebellion.

    We the People do not have any restriction from passing laws which do exactly what is needed: Assert a standard that ensures you are civil. Rather, the way forward is to remind the Senate that you need to prepare for a Conviction and lawfully remove this man from office.

    If you refuse, or you delay -- as is the practice -- we will continue to craft at New Constitution and force you to do what you refuse; and lawfully revoke the powers you refuse to assert.

    * * *

    The Senate has a problem. It refuses to face reality. Impeachment is inevitable.

    The way forward would be for the senate to prepare for that inevitability.

    But things are changing. Despite the Senate’s denial, there are new forces at play. The Senate believes it can put things off.

    Rather, the voters see the Senate is not willing to lead. We see what is obvious: There are many excuses to do nothing. We hear nothing but drivel as to why the law should or should not apply.

    Yet think back to Iraq. We supposedly invaded to bring order and stability. Why is that goal not good enough for America?

    * * *

    The issue is that the Senate is not interested. We can delegate powers to those who are more interested.

    The idea of governance is to solve problems. This Senate says that things should stay as they are. But we have a mess on our hands. This is not a solution. Rather, this Senate wants us to embrace what is not a solution. That is not governance.

    * * *

    This Senate hopes to deny the Constitutionality of what is permitted.

    Therefore, in the New Constitution, we shall deny them the power of what is not asserted.

    When they do not assert the law, they are denied the law.

    When they do not assert civility, they are denied civility.

    They may not compel others to be silent, while they are free to speak. Rather, if they attempt to deny others rights, they shall lose that power to do the same.

    If they choose to keep others silent on matters of the law, then the senate shall lose the power to comment on those matters. They cannot have it both ways, especially when they cannot do what they deny others. The way forward is to apply the principle of reciprocity and deny them the power to do what they deny others the right to do.

    This is the way of We the People.

    * * *

    Some have raised questions as to whether censure is lawful. Yet, each Chamber’s rules are up to the chamber to decide.

    Yet, it is clear that the leaders do not wish to recognize these rules. They want to debate the clearly established rules.

    Fine, we can change the rules with a New Constitution, and deny them the power to debate what they refuse to follow; and force them to debate what they should rather fear: Whether their conduct is or is not lawful.

    Yet, with time it will be clear that this is not permitted – as they are not allowed to engage in public discussion of matters of private felonies. We the People should require the senate to be silent – for they compel us to assent to secret courts; there is no reason the Senate should have a superior right to a public forum they deny others.

    The issue is that we have the right to a public trial. But the Senate under a New Constitution shall be denied the right to defend themselves when it comes to felonies. Rather, this shall be a matter that they cannot speak.

    The issue is not whether it is or is not germane. The issue is simple: If the Senate chooses to pass a law that denies the public to speak on Senate misconduct; then the Senate should be denied the right and power to discuss all things.

    The Senate cannot explain why it has a superior right to speak; while claiming a power it does not have to silence others.

    The Senate shall lose its power to make rules it cannot make; and be deprived of immunities it abuses.

    That is the way of We the People.

    * * *

    Let’s consider the issue of censure. Some would have us believe that the censure is not lawful. Yet, they ignore the rules.

    Let’s apply that principle – one of ignoring the rules – to other things.

  • A. What is to be said of the lawfulness of UN resolutions? We were once led to believe that the treaties with the UN Members States and under the umbrella of the UN were done with one principle in mind: That these treaties are the supreme law of the land.

    Yet, we’re asked to believe that this law of the land – which relates to treaties and chamber rules – has different means of enforcement. Rather, a treaty to bar abuse in Guantanamo is not enforced; just as a rule permitting censure is not followed.

    Rather, this Senate would like to invent fiction: All things it does not wish to follow or have applied are deemed “unconstitutional.”

    Perhaps the small minded Senator who opposes censure on these grounds would have something compelling to offer: Why is the sanction unconstitutional; but the violation gets not attention?

    The small minded ones in the Senate well have no answer. They like to shift attention. They like to pretend that a criminal is a saint; and that those who speak of the criminals are the ones who must suffer the punishment.

    * * *

    Treaties and rules are the guiding things for the Nation. They are to be followed, not explained away.

    It shall be unlawful for the Senators to proffer a defense of non-applicability – for they have sworn an oath to the Constitution. That means they have sworn an oath not only to the treaties and Constitution, but to the rules themselves. It is not credible to argue otherwise.

    Yet, today we are asked to endure this non-sense as if it were the work of saintly brethren. The only music they can offer us is the tune of tyranny, which whips the snake to a mesmerizing stare. Now, they want the nation to be transfixed.

    Enough! The rebels – the buffoons of the Senate -- must be called for what they are: Criminals, in active support of the President’s rebellion.

    * * *

    The leadership questions those who question; but does nothing about the violation.

    They stop what is permitted.

    They permit what must stop.

    The law has no meaning.

    They rewrite the meaning to avoid the law.

    They refuse to prevent what is unlawful.

    They unlawfully prevent what cannot be refused.

    * * *

    Consider what the buffoons in the senate do. There is a clear rule in Article 1 Section 8 that makes it a requirement that all Naturalization rules be uniform.

    Yet, what do the buffoons do? They want to reward criminals – just as they reward the Executive – for violations of the law. That is not uniform. That is anarchy.

    Illegal’s – whether they be from across the border or from across the Rose Garden – are outside the law. Congress does not have the power to ratify, validate, or make rules non-uniform.

    Rather, they have a duty to ensure the rules are followed.

    But they must be told with a New Constitution which rules they must follow, or be found in rebellion, and have committed a felony.

    * * *

    We build off the argument that what is not desire is not permitted: we shall do the same with all Senate powers. We do not desire to let the Senate slow roll. Thus, we shall deny them a voice on whether a matter is or is not addressed. They shall have to face the issue; or they shall be denied the power to have a say.

    The Senate speaks not to find truth, but to suppress it.

    Their clash of factions does not prevent abuse of power; it prevents the discovery of abuse.

    * * *

    The relative benefits of the Articles of Confederation need to be explored. Not as a solution, but as something that fell apart and was remedied with a solution.

    Today, we need to look at what the Articles of Confederation did and did not do – and measured against what we have today.

    Then the states were not organized; today’s Senate is no better. We can make a new system.

    The agreement to keep what has failed is at odds with the need for a solution.

    * * *

    This lazy Senate has powers, but they refuse to use it. Thus, they do not need that power; someone else can better use it.

    This Senate refuses to discuss evidence of Executive crimes. They lose that power to discuss.

    The states shall have the exclusive power to decide matters of treaties and appointments. The Senate will merely be what it already is: A rubber stamp to either approve slowly, or quickly what others have already decided.

    * * *

    The Senate has the option to establish law and order.

    This Senate denies a lawful option for Americans, but uses force in Iraq to bring disorder.

    Why is the Senate not using the law to bring order to America?

    This Senate needs to be denied the power to have options. They shall have no voice.

    Where there is no law and order we need not permit that option. Rather it is a requirement.

    * * *

    The Articles of Confederation were flawed because there was no uniform law. Today, we have uniform law, but no enforcement.

    This Senate denies a forum for single action.

    Thus, the senate shall be denied the power to act with a single voice.

    That power – the power of voice – shall be delegated to the states where it is enforced.

    * * *

    The Articles of Confederation failed because there was no central authority. Article 1 section 8 of our Constitution was crated to make these powers clear.

    We granted to Congress the power to make rules. Now this power is ignored.

    The Senate does not wish to use well recognized rules.

    We shall deny them the power to make rules.

    * * *

    The Senate power shall be whittled to noting. The body will have no power to do anything. Rather, they sill simply rubber stamp only things we the People have approved in the states. They may not vote against anything. They can only endorse what We the People have already discussed and debated.

    Even if the senate refuses to act, what we say goes. The senate may choose to do nothing, but that will not matter. We the People will have spoken in the states on what the laws are.

    The only way the Senate can have any power is if they use it.

    That which they do not use is denied.

    * * *

    Look once more at the Articles of Confederation. Consider what was fixed.

    Look at this mess today. What can be changed to address the real issue?

    How do we make the senate do its job; or deny them a voice to do not do what should be done. That is not a question.

    * * *

    The goal is simple: Force Congress to use power or lose it.

    We can proceed in an orderly fashion. Fist, we can consider all the Article 1 Section 8 powers that Congress refuses to assert or protect.

    Second, we can look at what has happened lately: What the Executive has ignored, violated, not done, or abused.

    Third, we can consider how we can turn the senate upside down: How they can be compelled to act; and denied powers they refuse to assert.

    * * *

    Money not used is taken away and given to where it is better used.

    Power not used is taken away and delegated to where it is not abused.

    * * *

    Let’s consider an exercise. Review the constitution. Here’s what you can do. Go down the list of the Constitution, and explore what is to be done. It is rather simple, even a buffoon in the Senate well could do this:

  • 1. Read the Article 1 Section 8 powers. Consider the problem of the articles of confederation; and generalize the less of what the Articles were attempting to solve; then

  • 2. Consider the abuses of today; then

  • 3. Consider the changes: What changes in language are needed; what changes in power are required; what powers need to be denied; and what new rules are required.

    That’s it. Now you have a New Constitution.

    * * *

    Senators are prohibited from engaging in any alliance at odds with the law or Constitution.

    Consider the three sections – Section 8, 9, and 10 of Article 1 -- as one: They outline powers, what is denied, and what the states cannot do.

    Sections 8, 9, and 10 consolidated powers because of the Articles of Confederation failed to have a single power; they also protect rights in the Constitution; and they deny options to prevent what failed during the Articles of confederation.

    Today, we can do the same: Consider the mess, and craft new rules, better descriptions of power, and define what the Senate and the Executive can and cannot do.

    It shall be a felony to recognize executive conduct which violates the bill of rights.

    It shall be a felony to legalize unconstitutional executive conduct

    It shall be a felony to appropriate funds for illegal things.

    * * *

    We can do the same thing with Article 1 section 10. We can recraft the Article into something new. Article 1 Section 10 originally applies to forces at odds with the central power and authority. This is a lesson of the Articles of Confederation as it applies to the states. We can re-apply this lesson to the Congress.

    Senators may not enter into an alliance at odds with the law; nor adjudicate on the law; nor raise questions of Constitutionality of the law or the rules.

    Senators have no say on the rules, these are matters for the states; and Senators have no power to adjudicate – those are matters for the Courts.

    In short, the senate has no power to speak. It is silent on all things. It is merely there as a rubber stamp – simply called what it is: A rubber stamp to decisions others have made.

    Under the New Constitution what shall be prohibited are any Senator actions with ratify illegal conduct, or validate unlawful act, or appropriate money for illegal things.

    The Senate may impose ministerial obligations on the Executive; to get free of this requirement, the Executive shall forward a request – in writing under penalty of perjury – as to the facts as to why this rule shall be changed.

    The Executive has no authority to speak – as does the Senate at particular times. Just as the Senate cannot speak at a conviction, the Executive shall be barred from speaking when signing a document. If he utters a word, he shall be tried for an impeachable offense.

    The executive and senate have threatened the public to be silent on illegal things. We can make it illegal for the senate and the executive to speak.

    We can do this. We the People may choose to grant them leave to speak when we choose to listen. At this juncture, they show little reason why they should be given deference or respected. Rather, they abuse their power.

    Consider the signing statement. It amounts to a legislative act: Redefining the intent of Congress, and outlining how the Executive will or will not follow the law. That is not lawful. The executive only has the power to follow the law, not I interpret, nor broaden or narrow the law as he defines it. This Executive has abused that freedom to speak. All Executives shall be denied the ability to speak.

    * * *

    Article 1 Section 8 is another source of curiosity. Congress currently has the exclusive power to make rules about laces.

    Congress shall lose the power to do nor not do what it refuses to do.

    States shall make the rules. The Senate shall be a forum to either agree or agree with comments. But regardless whether the Senate does or does not pass the act, the will of We the People through the states shall be the Supreme Law of the land.

    Judges shall oversee the law: To make sure that the laws are enforced as the Executive says they will. The Judges shall oversee the places outlined in Article 1 Section 8 – the judges shall repot to the states on what is or is not working.

    The Judges may order the Executive to cease and desist; or they may choose to seek new rules from the state to ensure that the Constitution is followed.

    * * *

    No Senator may assent to any rebellion; nor appropriate money for things only Congress can do; nor craft new language or confer any new power not expressly delegated.

    Senators shall lose immunity when they support by statement, act, legislation, debate, any conduct act or executive order which violates the law, abuses powers not delegated, creates tribunals outside the law, detains people without warrant, or denies any people their protected and clearly established rights.

    * * *

    Article 1 Section 8 is related to the problem of the Articles of Confederation: There was a lack of a uniform system. Today, the problem is a lack of enforcement of that system.

    The remedy is to confer on the States the power to try all Members of Congress when they refuse to enforce the law. Gone are the whitewash ethics reviews; we now have felony trials.

    Members of Congress are denied the right to run for successive offices. During off-terms they may do one of two things: Raise money, or face trials. They shall be barred from raising funds while in office.

    * * *

    If you look at the Senate Intelligence Bill you’ll see some interesting things.

    Congress appropriates money for programs which are not legal. There are elements these programs which are at odds with the laws. They also confer power to the Attorney General to make laws and create unsupervised exceptions which are unlawful changes to the Constitution.

    What’s needed is a way to fix the loopholes. What’s needed is a way to

  • A. prevent the secrecy
  • B. Prevent the exceptions
  • C. Prevent the violations
  • D. Prevent vague terms to hide illegal activity

    * * *

    Article 1 Section 4 is another interesting article. Changes are needed:

  • Congress shall meet everyday;

  • Congress is not permitted to raise money

  • Members of congress shall lose their seat after wining – then they can use the interval to raise money or face trial for their misconduct

    Congress is denied the power to make rules on elections. That power is one We the People delegate exclusively to the states.

    * * *

    Article 1 Section 3: We did not grant them the power to ignore the Constitution. What other provisions will we ignore?

    The President of the senate is the losing Presidential Candidate. If you want the Constitution to survive, you must preserve all of it, not just the parts you like and the parts you want to reciprocate.

    * * *

    No preference may be given to any individual citizen. No law may be passed which benefits some, not all. No appropriations may be made that help some, not all.

    If the rule of law is the basis of action abroad, then action at home when liked with the law and order is lawful. If the law cannot be applied at home, then the troops cannot be used abroad. All appropriations are illegal.

    * * *

    Article 1 Section 10

    The Senate may not debate appropriations for unlawful things. No Senator shall in concert with any other part support a presidential rebellion, debate matter of the other chamber, agree to not review a matter, unless the States permit or we are lawfully invaded.

    Whether the Senate does or does not review a matter shall have no bearing on whether the law exists or shall be enforced.

    NO member of the senate shall enjoy immunity when it comes to issues of proper investigations of executive misconduct; or appropriations for unlawful things.

    No Senator may refuse to recuse themselves on matters where they are involved

    NO senator may question the We the People and our power to assert the rule of law over the Senate

    No Senator may interfere with the business of the other chamber by commenting on matters under exclusive control of the other chamber.

    No Senator shall have the power – without permission f the sates – review treaties, travel, or engage in non-legislative acts.

    No Senator may impose standards on others in foreign lands not applied at home in the United States or other places where US forces, personnel or contractors are serving in support of a US objective, however clear or hidden that involvement may be.

    No Senator may appropriate funds for illegal things; once combat or other activities are found to be lawful, Senators shall have committed a felony if they continue to appropriate funds for an illegal war. The time where the sanctions apply are from when the evidence first surfaces, not when the country “finally gets around to” adjudicating on a matter of international law. There is no Statute of Limitations on Senatorial misconduct and abuse. If there is classified information that subsequently reveals a conspiracy, then senators may when the information is revealed be brought to court, no matter how hold they and frail they are.

    No Senator may appeal to ignorance or lack of knowledge as the basis to assert any imminence of danger.

    * * *

    The issue before us what is to be done when the Executive violates the law and the Senate does nothing.

    There should be certain thresholds of abuse whereby clear abuses rise to a level warranting the public to lawfully try him, especially when Congress does nothing.

    The Senate is to be silent during the trial; so too shall the President be silent at signing statements. The President is denied the right to speak at a signing.

    It is not simply unconstitutional to assert legislative and judicial power while singing, but it is a high crime and an impeachable offense to make any statement that says he shall otherwise not enforce the law, or engage in conduct or permit others to violate the law, not comply with the law , or not report information as required.

    Singing statements are unconstitutional exercise of exclusively powers already delegated to the legislature.

    * * *

    Article 1 Section 8 solves the problem of the Articles of Confederation. Today, the problem is those powers are not asserted. We have drifted to another mess. The problem isn’t what the states are or are not doing; the issue is the Executive is doing what is not permitted.

    The New Constitution needs to explicitly state the Executive shall have no power to: inter alia

  • Lie, mislead, fabricate information, or stifle the media

  • Deny reports, torture, abuse,

  • Make signing statements

  • Adjudicate on matters

  • Make war without a declaration of war

  • Move troops without an imminent threat

  • Make exceptions to the law

  • To permit violations of the law

  • To permit violations of the constitution

  • Independently craft new exceptions to the Bill of Rights

  • Do anything that will send a signal that the Bill of Rights may be violated

    It shall be a high crime and impeachable offense to make any statement that fails to enforce the law, or assert any power net expressly delegated or imply-assert-enforce-act on any power which belongs to another branch or to the states and people.

    There are no implied powers. There are only expressly delegated powers and expressly stated ministerial acts.