How to lawfully shut down the Senate
Who needs a Senate when the Senate doesn't protect the Constitution?
We've outlined previously a method to vote on an impeachment investigation without going through the House Judiciary Committee, and using non-Federal resources to trigger the first steps in an impeachment proceeding.
Today, we're going to focus on the Senate and show how it can be lawfully shut down.
The point of this is to remind the White House, House, and Senate: Unless you put the Constitution first, you're no longer going to be able to do your jobs.
Reed 24: You might enjoy the "notes" at the end of this . . .
Keep in mind a couple of things as we go through this.
1. Issues of the Constitution take precedent over all things in the Senate
2. The Senate rules already outline that Constitutional issues take precedence over all things.
3. The Senate can be shut down until the House faces what it refuses to face.
4. The Constitution already says that no funds may be expended unless consistent with the law.
I'm going to jump around, and trust that you'll keep the above four points in mind as I go through this: How to shut down the Senate.
Let's talk background. Specter is proposing an Amendment to cut off funding for the illegal NSA programs. We've already discussed other options the Senate could use -- that they refuse to assert -- raising doubts about their seriousness to assert their oat of office and protect the Constitution.
Also, keep in mind what the Senate is actually doing: Despite war crimes, and high crimes, they're failing to focus on the Constitutional issues.
Also, keep in mind that the Constitution already clearly says that no funds may be expended for unlawful things. We already know the President admits the NSA program continues -- thereby satisfying the necessary element to show he continues to spend funds for illegal things -- and is unconstitutional.
On that alone, the Senate should put this issue on the top of the agenda: The Constitutional issue of what happens when the Executive continues to spend funds not just outside the law, but outside the fundamental law of the land: The Constitution.
The point of this discussion is to emphasize one simple thing: There's no reason to have an amendment to tell the President you can't spend funds; nor does the Senate have to wait to get information form the House/White House on whether there is or is not illegal activity.
Rather, despite the clear violations of the fundamental law -- the Constitution -- this Senate is doing three dangerous things:
Here's the point: The Senate is violating its own rules by not putting this Constitutional issue first.
Also, the Senate is not putting the Constitutional issue on the top of the agenda as it should.
Third, the Senate is ignoring the Constitutional issue with the NSA/DoJ illegal activity -- funds are being spent in violation of Article 1 Section 9.
Fourth, the Senate is embracing fiction when it says that "business as usual" can continue, despite the Constitutional issue: Continued Executive expenditures which violate not just the statute [In contravention of Article 1 Section 9] -- but violate the very document and bill of rights from which it derives its power.
Here's what's needed.
1. The Senate leadership needs to be called on the carpet. They have to explain why they are in violation of the Senate rules.
2. The Senate as a whole needs to put this Constitutional issue first on the agenda. And all other Senate business needs to end.
3. The Senate needs to shift the discussion from whether they should or should not appropriate money "on the basis of information from the White House" -- and say, "We already have the information: The White House has admitted that it is spending money in violation of the law, statute, and Constitution -- this is an Article 1 Section 9 issue, and is a constitutional issue.
4. The debate needs to quit spending time on whether the House and White House will or will not cooperate with the Senate to protect the Constitution. Rather, the Senate needs to assert leadership and say, "Because this is a Constitutional issue, the White House and House -- until they agree to cooperate with the Constitutional issues by voting on impeachment, and stop spending funds on illegal things -- can no longer rely on the Senate to cooperate with this illegal activity.
5. As long as the Senate continues to operate -- and ignore the Conational issues -- the Senate should be seen for what it is: In violation of the Constitution, operating in violation of it the Senate rules, unwilling to face the Constitutional issues.
Voters need to have this translated into something specific they can chew on and spit back at the Senate:
Congress never voted to appropriate money to violate the Constitution. That is not Constitutional.
The way forward is to launch this issue into the Courts. The issue is no longer whether the Senate has the discretion to follow or not follow its rules. Rather, the issue is that despite the power to make and enforce rules -- related to precedence, bills, and appropriating things for only lawful things -- this Senate wants to collect more information that it doesn't need.
This is dilatory.
The way forward is to bring suit in Federal Court to compel the Senate leadership to admit and face this Constitutional issue: You are not facing the Constitutional issues of illegal expenditures.
Bluntly, the Senate no longer works to protect this Constitution.
The public and voters should plainly see that the Senate is reckless, a threat to the Constitution, and fails to use the powers it has to do what must be done to preserve the very document from which it derives its power.
Until the Senate faces these Constitutional issues -- and embraces the reality that it already has the information it needs to shut down the NSA program because it violates Article 1 Section 9 -- the Senate is in violation of its own rules mandating that a Constitutional issue like this take #1 priority.
Let's summarize what we have.
It's time to throw this entire mess into Federal Court. This is a Constitutional issue. But this isn't something that merely lands inside the District Court.
Because this is a Constitutional issue, this goes to the highest court: The Supreme Court.
This is exactly what is needed: To get visibility, to shut all things down, and compel the third branch to take a stand.
The voters will need to be guided on what is going on. Most likely the House, Senate, and White House are going to join forces and whine saying, "This is unprecedented."
That's the point: It is unprecedented for the Federal Government to wage illegal war against its citizens; and the same time it negotiates with the insurgents in Iraq and respects the laws of the Taliban.
It is also unprecedented for illegal wars to be waged, and still funded, despite piles of evidence.
And it is also unprecedented fro both Houses of Congress to ignore the rules mandating that Constitutional issues take precedence.
In short, we have an unprecedented failure of the American government to assent to the rule of law.
Despite state level petitions and the credible threat of a New Constitution, this Senate, House, and White House refuse to put the Constitution first.
It’s time to launch this into the Supreme Court, and have them adjudicate on whether anyone in the Senate, House, or White House has the mental competence to remain fit to remain in office; and immediately begin a mental competence hearing of the President and Vice President under the 25th Amendment for purposes of lawfully having the Supreme Court remove the President and Vice President from Office.
Next Steps
1. Congressional Precedents
A. Need to look at the Senate rules and find the specific instances when the Senate Rules -- as an issue of precedence -- mandated a Constitutional issue take precedence.
B. Look for the case law that shows the Article 1 Section 9 issues are linked with a clear violation of the Constitution and law of the land. By implication, continued NSA funding/appropriations and expenditures are a clear violation of the Constitution.
C. Need to review the mental capacity issues related to the 25th Amendment for purposes of looking at the
2. Look at the Supreme Court precedents on issues of rebellion, unconstitutional Federal Government action, and the steps to bring this action to the Supreme Court immediately.
3. Need to get the House Judiciary Ranking Member on notice that this is happening real time.
4. Notify the Senate Sergeant at Arms there appears to be clear Constitutional issues which isn't getting the attention it needs.
5. Put together a package for the Rules Committees in both Houses to face this Constitutional issue.
6. Notify the civil plaintiffs in the AT&T litigation that there may potentially be an amicus filing with the Supreme Court on not just the NSA issue, but the larger issue of what the Supreme Court should or should not do in situations where the Senate, House, and White House have collectively ignore the Constitution and support illegal expenditures which violate Article 1 Section 9.
7. Incorporate the lessons learned from this action into the next wave of state proclamations calling for impeachment.
8. Get the public to share what is going on, and get them to spit out what the Senate is doing: Wasting time on Amendments, when the Constitution already says that no funds may be expended for what we already know. Encourage the voters to continue their work in the other states to bring this issue in the form of additional language in the state proclamations calling for impeachment; and continue their search for new leaders.
9. Get with the OpEd and Impeachment coalitions to focus on this issue: How the Senate is failing to assert its oath, not following the rules, and failing to shut down other non-core business; while at the same time it fails to shut down appropriations for what is already illegal; and also continues to fail to assert its power to shut down all business until the House votes on the Vermont petitions.
10. Explore the methods by which the above allegedly illegally and unconstitutional activity can form the basis of subsequent state impeachments and other filings in federal court to lawfully have the Members of Congress -- who refuse to assert their oath and put these issues first as required under the Chamber rules -- found in violation of the law, and have them lawfully indicted and removed from office.
Translation for those who cannot read between the lines.
1. The Senate, House, and White House have joined in an illegal rebellion against the Constitution.
2. The Federal government cannot be trusted to protect this Constitution, nor assert powers to ensure the Executive complies with the law.
3. The State proclamations continue to gather support. and there will be more on the way.
4. Free people can take lawful, non-violate action to force the government to assent to the rule of law
5. If you fail to assert your oath, follow your chamber rules, or put the Constitution first, you then become the lawful subject of a formal criminal investigation and may be found to be unfit for office and lawfully removed.
6. The failure of the House, Senate, and White House to take these Constitutional issues seriously means the Supreme Court needs to be brought into the nexus to decide what is to be done; what rules and issues will or will not get attention; and which appropriations and expenditures are unconstitutional under Article 1 Section 9.
7. The current crew in DC has been unable to figure this out, they've wasted time, and they have absolutely no credibly to call themselves leaders or representatives of the People of the Untied States. Rather, they are in unlawful rebellion against the Constitution and remain a clear and present danger. Beware, they are reckless and unwilling to do what they get paid to do. They should be treated as alleged outlaws and treated accordingly: Subjects and potential targets of criminal investigations and grand jury indictments.
Notes
This notes section is not going to be your traditional notes. Normally, you’ll have single notes for each link. This one will organize the notes into groups.
You’ll quickly see that this makes more sense; and at the same time, you’ll see how the different notes and links are logically linked and related to common themes.
Each box below has a theme, and included are many different links. The numbers will take you back to the content. You’ll also notice that the numbers are not sequential, but grouped.
Now you will be able to easily see how the various comments, links, source material related to larger theme; while at the same time being able to see how the original source material relates to each other, and the text above.
Themes:
Solutions
Here are the detailed notes. Boxes Will be Added, and the notes will be better organized to support the above points.
8. Former Presidents of the United States shall be entitled to address the Senate upon appropriate notice to the Presiding Officer who shall thereupon make the necessary arrangements.[ Ref ]
This President insists upon absurdity too gross for the Supreme Court to Entertain
The President does not have the power to decide if something is or is not lawful or Constitutional. This is the power exclusively for the Courts. ["It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." -- 5 U.S. 137]
Marbury shows us that the Government must comply with the Constitution, and the rule applies to the Legislature.
It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.[ 5 U.S. 137 ]However, the rule also applies to the Executive -- He may not do what the Court found the Legislature attempted to do -- trump the law and Constitution with his action.
Moreover, the President may not ignore the law -- nor put into effect an unlawful act of Congress -- nor may he assert powers that violate the Constitution. This would simply recognize what is contrary to the Constitution.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. . . . the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.[ 5 U.S. 137 ]The President may not do something -- however connected to any ruse -- to justify any conduct that violates the law or Constitution. Rather, his conduct must fall under the umbrella of the Constitution, not vice versa. What is not lawful cannot be put into effect; nor may the President use funds to put into effect any contract or scheme that violates the Constitution. A President by his actions alone does not ratify all his conduct as lawful. Rather, the Constitution is the source of that calibration and rebuke.
[5 U.S. 137 ]
"It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws."
Where the law is specific and relates to a ministerial duty -- not power -- the President and Secretary of Defense must follow the law:
. . .the President is not amenable to any court of judicature for the exercise of his high functions, but is responsible only in the mode pointed out in the constitution. . . .The requisites to be performed by the secretary are ministerial, ascertained by law, and he has no discretion, but must perform them; there is no dispensing power. [ 5 U.S. 137]
[5 U.S. 137] Syllabus: "An act of congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become a law."
[ 524 U.S. 569, Souter in dissent relying on Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137] There is no absolute presumption of Constitutionality of Acts of Congress.
"courts cannot allow a legislature's conclusory belief in constitutionality, however sincere, to trump incontrovertible unconstitutionality"What this does is lay the pathway for the Members of Congress to take this issue to court; and/or civil litigation can compel what the US government refuses to do: Assent to the rule of law. However, the public and Senate cannot "sit back" and "wait for" the potentially endless civil litigation -- which may or may not be timely -- to act as an excuse and crutch today to do nothing or 'thinking about". Rather, this issue -- one of Constitutionality -- belongs in the court, and something the Members of Congress has the power to launch into the Judicial Branch for a swift and timely resolution.
Either the Congress will shut off funds for the illegal activity -- which the Senators have not been given information -- or the Courts should have to find that the Acts of Congress were not Constitutional.
What's worse is that the members f Congress have failed to show that they take 5 USC 3331 seriously; rather, they simply rubber stamp legislation regardless the vacuum of facts and self-admitted violations of the 4th Amendment and FISA.
Federalist 44 well outlines the basis for assuming the Constitution would derive great benefits: That the world would see that free people could self-govern.
In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.If we fail to assert oaths, and require Members of congress to perform duties to investigate, find facts, and ensure the appropriations are lawful . . . while at the same time assent to lawlessness and violations of treaties, then we have failed in self-government. The world appropriately holds the US in contempt and with disdain.
The only way we can explain our current condition is by referring to Federalist 27. Hamilton assumed that the failure of the government would result in:
If we will arbitrarily suppose the contrary, we may deduce any inferences we please from the supposition; for it is certainly possible, by an injudicious exercise of the authorities of the best government that ever was, or ever can be instituted, to provoke and precipitate the people into the wildest excessesFederalist27This is the state we find ourselves. The only way to explain this is that the oath of office -- as leverage, bond, and promise -- has failed, and the Members of Congress have refused to assert their oath, assenting to Tyranny.
[ 521 U.S. 898 ] Federalist 27. The Founders in correctly assumed that ambition would drive people to protect the Constitution. Today, despite the assumptions of Federalist 27, we have the worst of both worlds: Blind faith in a Constitution that does not work to assert ambition -- thereby preventing the abuse of power, or protecting rights -- combined with the common agreement to fail to assert power, and assent to tyranny.
But though the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should presume that the national rulers would be insensible to the motives of public good, or to the obligations of duty, I would still ask them how the interests of ambition, or the views of encroachment, can be promoted by such a conduct? Federalist 27The answer is that some are rewarded for failing to be ambitious, but to lazily assent to tyranny. These lazy fools who appear to be incompetent, reckless, and negligent in their duties have infested the Senate and are are threat to the Constitution. Their oath of office means nothing.
[ 405 U.S. 676 ] There is a linkage between the oath and [a] actions which may or may not be lawful; [b] duties which may or may not be followed, and [c] the law with is the standard not only in statute but the Constitution.
"The oath of constitutional support requires an individual assuming public responsibilities to affirm . . . that he will endeavor to perform his public duties lawfully." 401 U.S., at 192. [ 405 U.S. 676 ]If ones actions -- through neglect, indifference, carelessness, or lack of attention -- result in there being violations of the laws -- assent to illegal use of funds for illegal things, in violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 -- then they have not effectively done their job, and failed to assert their oath to ensure that all funds are used for lawful things. Rather, they've done the opposite: Failed to prevent the use of funds that not only abuse power and violate rights, but destroy the very Constitution from which they derive their power, and rely on to claim valuable consideration.
In short, they command that we pay them despite their reckless disregard for violations which destroy the contract they rely on to mandate employment, payment, and financial support. That is absurd and extortionate demands of funds for nothing of value received, other than more worthless assurances and no benefit to the people. IN other words, we have given up our power and rights to do things, but have not gotten anything in return other than the very abuse they promised they would prevent. They are not legitimate and have not simply failed in their oath, but are worthless creatures, commanding no reasonable basis to compel the public respect them or take them seriously.
[ 401 U.S. 154 ]
U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 5 (4), requiring an applicant for admission to the Bar of this Court to swear or affirm that he will "support the Constitution of the United States."
[ 339 U.S. 382 ] The Constitution itself requires it be protected. Those who do not protected it, regardless the scheme or device, are at odds with the Constitution and not fit to remain in office. Whether one violates the oath, or refuses to take the oath -- we have the same result: The Constitution is not preserved, power is abused, and rights are violated:
Clearly the Constitution permits the requirement of oaths by officeholders to uphold the Constitution itself. The obvious implication is that those unwilling to take such an oath are to be barred from public office.Conversely, this means that by failing to protect the Constitution -- and violating the oath -- one is not fit to hold/remain in office, seek office, assert power or be a Member of Congress.
[ 339 U.S. 382 ] An oath by its very nature removes absolute discretion to Members of Congress -- there are some things that they have no choice, and must do:
Clearly the Constitution permits the requirement of oaths by officeholders to uphold the Constitution itself. The obvious implication is that those unwilling to take such an oath are to be barred from public office. For the President, a specific oath was set forth in the Constitution itself. Art. II, § 1. And Congress has detailed an oath for other federal officers. n22 Obviously, the Framers of the Constitution thought that the exaction of an affirmation of minimal loyalty to the Government was worth the price of whatever deprivation of individual freedom . . . of conscience was involved. All that we need hold here is that the casting of § 9 (h) into the mold of an oath does not invalidate it, if it is otherwise constitutional.The Members of Congress by their conduct -- continued appropriations for illegal things [and expended in violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7], assent to illegal NSA activity, and refusal to investigate to find out where funds were actually going and used by the NSA -- have invalidated their oath, thereby destroying the intent of the Framers, and destroying the protections -- we the People have been guaranteed -- of Article IV.
[332 U.S. 46] An oath is to ensure that the Constitution itself is not only preserved, but the benefits of that Constitution are realized:
"The States never had the right, though they had the power, to inflict wrongs upon free citizens by a denial of the full protection of the laws; because all State officials are by the Constitution required to be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.Members of Congress through inaction and failure to assert their oath have permitted wrongs to be inflicted upon citizens; and the Members of Congress by appropriating funds for illegal things have denied fully protection of the laws to the People.
[ 59 U.S. 331 ] The theory of the Constitution is that by granting power to the Senate and House to do things -- protect the Constitution -- we the People have taken that power away from the states. But if the Senate and House refuse to do that job -- namely, protect the Constitution -- then the states may assert the power which the Senate refuses to assert. "the grants of legislative powers, and the negation of the exercise of other powers by the States"
Article IV: Binds the Members of Congress in the Senate and House to the Constitution through the oath.
Theory of Member of Congress Oath of office: Federalist 44
The Rules of the Congress -- as called forth in Article 1 Section 5 clearly state that the Members of Congress are bound to support this Constitution. That is their job. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 says that all expenditures must be consistent with the law -- this means that the President, by violating the law with his illegal programs, is spending money on this that not only violate the law, but are contrary to the intent of Congress. This violates Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7.
Failure to shut off funding for this illegal activity is a liability which falls on members of Congress through 5 USC 3331. 5 USC 3331 is the legal vehicle to criminalize a failure to support the Constitution:
\2\ This <> Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.
\3\ The <> Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution[ Click ]
[ 71 U.S. 333, EX PARTE GARLAND ] Oath of office applies to Attorneys.
Congressional Budget Reports
we have no specifics on the NSA programs or the other illegal presidential programs. There's no way the Senate can credibly comply with these reporting requirements as promulgated [ Click ] This is a violation of 5 USC 3331.
Office of Compliance
2 USC 1834 Subchapter III.--Office of Compliance
Need some straight answers on where these folks are. There are clear Constitutional standards, but the senate is ignoring their duties. What's going on -- are these people asleep, or what's their excuse?
The Senate Leadership shows clear signs of incompetence and negligence
The reckless disregard of their oath of office [5 USC 3331] and the flagrant disregard of the Constitution and Article 1 Section 9 [mandating that appropriations only be made for lawful things] shows us there is a reasonable basis to remove the Senate leadership.
The Senators appear to have violated their oaths, not protected the Constitution, and have engaged in recklessness, gross negligence, neglect of duty, and malfeasance.
There are many Senators who have violated 5 USC 3331, and many staffers in the RNC who have faced illegal threats to remain silent about the illegal Presidential activity
Not only is the President violating the law with the illegal NSA programs, but the subsequent threats are additional violations of the law.
There is sufficient basis to open a preliminary inquiry into Senate violations of 5 USC 3331.
Clear Senate Rules mandating lawful expenditures
930 Sec. 114. Annual authorization of appropriations.
(a) No funds may be appropriated for any fiscal year to
or for the use of any armed force or obligated or expended
for--
. . . [Various things]
unless funds therefore have been specifically authorized by
law. [Click ]
We see no language in the FISA which permits any of the illegal NSA activity. Yet, this Senate continues to "think about" appropriating funds for the activities already known to be illegal.
Issue:
A. If no Senator has any information of "what is going on inside the NSA" -- what is the mental competence of the Senators who are appropriating funds?
B. If no Senator is being given the necessary information to answer simple questions about the law -- and what the NSA is actually ding with respect to the Constitution -- what is the basis for any Senator to appropriate any funds for the NSA?
The Senate is not only recklessly endangering the Constitution, but they are simply rubber stamping "whatever" the President asks for, regardless whether those funds are for lawful objectives.
This is sufficient evidence to show that the Senate and Senators individually have failed to support the Constitution and have violated 5 USC 3331, the criminal statute which imposes liability on them individually for failing to protect the Constitution. Rather, by blindly appropriating funds without any knowledge of how the activities relate or do not relate to the Constitution, the Senate shows that it is acting in a reckless, disconnected, negligent, and completely unconstitutional manner.
SecDef continues to provide false reports to Congress on the Special Access Programs
NSA programs and other activities the President and attorney General call "presidential programs" are known to be illegal; and the disclosures to Congress are not complete, and insufficient as required by the Senate rules:
934 Sec. 119. Special access programs: congressional oversight.
(a)(1) Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the defense committees
a report on special access programs.
(2) Each such report shall set forth--
(A) the total amount requested for special
access programs of the Department of Defense in
the President's budget for the next fiscal year
submitted under section 1105 of title 31; and
(B) for each program in that budget that is
a special access program--
(i) a brief description of the program;
(ii) a brief discussion of the major
milestones established for the program;
(iii) the actual cost of the program for
each fiscal year during the program has been
conducted before the fiscal year during
which that budget is submitted; and
(iv) the estimated total cost of the
program and the estimated cost of the
program for (I) the current fiscal year,
(II) the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted, and (III) each of the four
succeeding fiscal years during which the
program is expected to be conducted. [Click ]
Again, either SecDef hasn't disclosed what the illegal activities are -- in violation of the law -- or the senate, despite knowing of the illegal activates, continues to appropriate funds for unlawful activities in violations of Article 1 Section 9.
In light of [a] the illegal NSA activities, and [b] the Requirement to provide SAP data to the senate, no Senator, given this vacuum of information can have any confidence that the SecDef Special Access programs provided to the Senate are accurate, complete, reliable, or credible.
SecDef has provide false and misleading information to Congress in re the way funds were used for illegal activities
Funds were not actually used in a lawful manner, and the following reports have been fraudulently provided to the Senators which they know -- or should know -- are not correct:
(2) The Secretary shall also include in each such report
the justification for and an explanation of the level of
funding recommended in the Budget of the President for the
next fiscal year for aircraft flying hours, ship steaming
hours, field training days for the combat arms battalions,
major repair work to be performed on ships of the Navy,
airframe reworks, aircraft engine reworks, and vehicle
overhauls.[ Click ]
Either SecDef "explained" the NSA illegal programs or he did not. If SecDef "explained" the NSA illegal activity, then the Senate has violated their oath and failed to protect the Constitution; conversely, if the SecDef has "not explained" the NSA illegal activity -- as we are asked to believe -- then the Senate despite knowing this failure, continues to appropriate funds for things it cannot claim are lawful. Again, this is a failure of the Senate to protect the Constitution, and a violation of 5 USC 3331.
Either the senate is or is not serous about ensuring the appropriations are for lawful things. This Senate has no information, but continues to appropriate funds for what is unconstitutional. They are not credibly protecting the Constitution. This is a violation of their oath, 5 USC 3331.
One cannot credibly argue SecDef and the Senate -- in 2006, three years after the false claims over Iraq WMD -- have reconciled why the SecDef 2002-4 reports of appropriated/planned funds/programs are at odds with actual uses of funds in re Intelligence, NSA, and the reports related to position of material and weapons in support of this false information. The justifications are disconnected with reality, and there is no linkage between [a] actual facts/actual threats; and [b] justifications provided to Congress; and [c] actual use of funds which violate the law.
Urgent Amendments
There is a power, duty, and Constitutional obligation under 5 USC 3331 to immediately act to shut down programs that are unlawful. Here we are, six Calendar months after stonewalling, and the Senate is "thinking about" shutting off funding for what is not lawful.
Hay, if you want to "think about" it, think about this: 5 USC 3331 -- you have no power to "think about" appropriating any funds in violation of the Constitution. Period. Rather, six months after the NYT revelations, and here we are "wondering" what could "possibly be going on." Game over: You're not getting any better information -- we know the activity is illegal. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 says no funds can be appropriated for illegal things. End of discussion.
Unless you want to be found in violation of 5 USC 3331 -- for failing to protect the Constitution -- So let's have an immediate, urgent Amendment to shut down the funding for these illegal activities, and have SecDef, DoJ Ag, and the President immediately appear before Congress to respond to questions. If they fail, they need to be found in contempt of Congress and that information forwarded to a Grand Jury. Period, end of discussion.
We need a straight story -- something that is credible -- that will make the American voters believe you are serious about 5 USC 3331 -- and are going to introduce on Monday, 8 May 2006 an Amendment to shut down the funding for the programs the White House and SecDef refuse to provide information on as they are required. Again, if you fail to act, we may make the adverse inference that you are in violation of 5 USC 3331 -- your oath:
(e) Amendment of regulations
Regulations may be amended in the same manner as is
described in this section for the adoption, approval, and
issuance of regulations, except that the Board may, in its
discretion, dispense with publication of a general notice of
proposed rulemaking of minor, technical, or urgent
amendments that satisfy the criteria for dispensing with
publication of such notice pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of
Title 5. [Click ]
Title 5 USC 553(b)(B)
Minority party has power to call witnesses over the NSA illegal activities and unlawful domestic activities which violate our Constitution -- why isn't this power being used?
26.4d (d) Whenever any hearing is conducted by a committee
(except the Committee on Appropriations) upon any measure or
matter, the minority on the committee shall be entitled,
upon request made by a majority of the minority members to
the chairman before the completion of such hearing, to call
witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect
to the measure or matter during at least one day of hearing
thereon. Click
Standing:
A legislator has a recognized right to sue to secure legal recognition of the effectiveness as an enactment of a bill for which he voted but which has -- with arguable impropriety -- been denied promulgation as a law ( Kennedy v. Sampson, 1974, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 511 F.2d 430), [421 F. Supp. 533]
It is absurd to argue that because the President does something it is legal.
"this is a unique syllogism in which both the premise and the conclusion could be true but the connection between them is faulty because of the absence of a major premise," [71 F.R.D. 676 ]
[ 60 F. Supp. 985 ] "a person may be estopped from asserting the unconstitutionality of an act"
[ 60 F. Supp. 985 ] Congress has the exclusive power to define how money is expended; the President has no say so; and the Executive has no power or authority otherwise.
Article I, § 9, clause 7 of the Constitution provides as follows: 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law * * * .' Congress in making appropriations has the power and authority not only to designate the purpose of the appropriation, but also the terms and conditions under which the executive department of the government may expend such appropriations. Thus the War Department was required to make the Renegotiation Act a part of all its contracts. The purpose of the appropriations, the terms and conditions under which said appropriations were made, is a matter solely in the hands . . .of Congress and it is the plain and explicit duty of the executive branch of the government to comply with the same. Any attempt by the judicial branch of our government to interfere with the exclusive powers of Congress would be a plain invasion of the powers of said body conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States. Our judiciary has been exceedingly careful not to intrude upon the powers of the other two branches of the government and has often recognized its limitations in this respect.
[285 F. Supp. 866] The only way to enforce the NSA appropriations is if American citizens are subjected to additional damages, and violations of their rights. This is not lawful.
[ 96 F. Supp. 2d 995] NSA contractors are not entitled to any damages should the Congress and/or others in the Executive branch shut down funding for the continuing illegal programs and activities which continue to violate the Constitution.
The Appropriations Clause of the United States Constitution provides: "No Money [**28] shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, Cl. 7. This clause prohibits the judiciary from granting any money claim against the federal government unauthorized by statute. Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424, 434, 110 L. Ed. 2d 387, 110 S. Ct. 2465 (1990).
[280 F. Supp. 2d 314] Distinguishes itself from this case in that the President did not link the NSA mentoring with a specific AUMF; rather, the conduct and illegally monitoring was already occurring prior to Sept 2001. Further, the Executive Order was not consistent with the Congressional language in the specific, narrow FISA, which trumps all the generalized AUMF for Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other secret Executive Order related to Eastern European detention Centers. Also, unlike Executive Order 13290 which was "pursuant to express congressional authorization", in this case the FISA trumps the AUMF, and there was no express authorization for the President to violate the law.
These are issues of criminal law. The issue in hindsight, and matters for investigators to determine is who is physically making the payments for these illegal activities. [Nieves v. Barnhart, "payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized by statute"; March 23, 2005, Decided ROBERT W. SWEET, U.S.D.J.
]. The FISA statute does not permit -- and cannot permit -- violations of the Constitution; there is no credible defense that the orders, direction, or Presidential programs were either lawful or consistent with Article 1 Section 9.
[ 234 F. Supp. 2d 999] There is no claim the NSA contractors have for having the funds shut off. Rather, it remains to be understood to what extent the NSA contractors have intimidated, abused, and otherwise threatened their employees to remain silent over actions which the US government shall not compensate, fund, or otherwise lawfully make payments for. ["judicial use of the equitable doctrine of estoppel cannot grant ... a money remedy that Congress has not authorized"] Translation: The NSA contractors have no legal claim to be reimbursed for any illegal activity; because of this imminent loss of funding streams, and likely impact on their NYSE-listed companies, it remains to be understood what pressure -- if any -- NSA contractors are putting on DoJ, the White House and others in the NSA to remain silent about the illegal conduct so that the stock prices of these firms do not collapse, fall, or otherwise translate into losses which public investors could/may/might claim damages under the 1933/34 Acts and PSLRA.
[ 384 F. Supp. 2d 1039 ] It remains to be understood which specific contracting officers working for the NSA have illegally made payments to the NSA contractors despite their gross violations of the Constitution, and their reckless disregard for the warrant requirements which no reasonable person could rely on.
In the words of the one Treasury Comptroller, "The law is plain, and any [**162] disbursing officer disregards it at his peril." n392
KARIAN v US [January 4, 1991, Decided] "The payment of money from the Treasury must be expressly authorized by a specific statue."
HARRIS v. Statefarm [UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION, January 11, 2006, Decided: F. Bradford Stillman, United States Magistrate Judge]
Congress alone has authority to make laws providing for payment of money out of the Treasury n22 ["No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.]
28 USC 544, By taking the oath, US Attorneys agree and promise to faithfully execute office and protect the Constitution. [See: 393 F. Supp. 688 ] These duties include prosecuting for all offenses against the United States.
The fundamental oath of all attorneys is to the United States Constitution. [ Click ] Any attorney who fails to protect the Constitution could be disbarred and forever prevented from practicing law.
[ 307 U.S. 433 ] There is no legal foundation to mandate anyone in the NSA, CIA, or contractors remain silent about illegal activity which violates the US Constitution. The contracts of a corporation -- that work for the NSA or CIA -- may not be unconstitutional or achieve an illegal objective; any contract that requires anyone to be silent about illegal activity is not enforceable; any clause, agreement, or design to hide illegal activity or conduct that is contrary to the Constitution is unenforceable, cannot be enforced, and cannot be recognized by any court as a legitimate exercise of any power, right, position, or authority by the President or Secretary of Defense. No federal officer, agent, or other person working in law enforcement may rely on any order, direction, or regulation that compels any action against those who report illegal activity. There is no legal foundation or protection for any federal officer, member of law enforcement, or member of the CIA or contractors to intimidate, harass, or otherwise target anyone who comes forward with information related to illegal activity or unlawful Presidential programs. Rather, you subject yourself to personal liability under 42 USC 1983 for civil rights claims for communicating and exercising free speech. Any action taken against those who report illegal conduct is not enforceable and is not tolerable in a civilized society:
municipal corporations have no standing to invoke the contract clause or the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in opposition to the will of their creator
[56 F. Supp. 2d 1226] Raises question of standing in re Member of Congress challenging President. When Members of Congress are equally undermined, no single member of Congress has an individualized claim of standing.
28 U.S.C. § 453, oath of office for judicial officers -- judges -- is different than that which applies to members of Congress. [See: 541 F. Supp. 1165]
There are two houses of Congress to prevent Congress from abusing its power.
There is little doubt as to Article I, Section 1's purpose in vesting all legislative powers "in a Congress" consisting of "a Senate and House of Representatives." Perhaps the greatest fear of the Framers was that in a representative democracy the Legislature would be capable of using its plenary lawmaking power to swallow up the other departments of the Government. The Supreme Court [**97] noted in Buckley that "the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalist Papers, are replete with expressions of fear that the Legislative Branch of the National Government will aggrandize itself at the expense of the other two branches." n162 [See: 218 U.S. App. D.C. 34]
[ 403 F.3d 997 ] Oath of office, promises, and other agreements -- and the violation of those agreements -- are appropriate factors in sentencing.
[ 693 F.2d 1061 ] Affirms Oath of office is a real requirement on public officials to uphold the Constitution, not ignore it or explain it away:
Finally, we note that all three branches of government are bound to uphold the Constitution in the exercise of their duties. See generally 5 U.S.C. § 3331 (oath of office). Indeed, the development of the exclusionary [**19] rule as a device to put some "teeth" into the fourth amendment was the judiciary's response to inaction by the Congress.It remains to be understood what mechanism -- like the exclusory rule -- the courts create or design where Congress refuses to act on matters of ensuring the Members of Congress are held to account for reckless disregard for Executive war crimes and gross violations of our Constitution.
[ 862 F.2d 1025 ] Conspiracy of drug trafficking -- as could be applied to the CIA in the President's illegal rendition program -- attaches liability on the CIA officer for purposes of conspiracy.
[ 900 F.2d 1558 ] CIA relationship to federal government, knowledge of activities. CIA and NSA officials by taking the oath have affirmed that they know their conduct is related to the US government, and their conduct falls under Article 1 Section 8 rule making power of Congress, not the President.
US v. GILBERTO, 9th Circuit [92 Daily Journal DAR 6302]
The President and Congress, and all of the subordinate employees within their respective branches, have a solemn responsibility to comply with the Constitution in the performance of their assigned functions. This responsibility is derived directly from the Constitution and is reinforced by the oath of office administered to every government employee before he enters on duty. 5 USC 3331. When no judicial remedy is available to enforce constitutional strictures, we must rely on the diligence and good faith of the officials of the other branches to avoid constitutional violations.
[ 401 U.S. 154 ] Failure to meet requirements of oath of office may result in a State stripping the attorney of their power to practice law. This means that any Member of Congress that fails to meet their oath of office may have their State Bar Accreditation revoked. In other words, if the Members of Congress -- who are attorneys -- fail to meet their oath of office required to maintain their bar accreditation, they will lose heir livelihood and legal foundation they use to convince the public they are credible public candidates for high office.
Amendment 14: Those found to be in rebellion are barred from holding public office.
Oath of office: 5 U.S.C. 3331 Ref
Copies of all the oaths of Members of Congress are on file [ Click ]
5 USC 3332 Affirmed with [ 78 F.3d 1307 ]
[ Senate Manual ]
Sergeant at Arms
Intervention Rer
489 Sec. 288e. Intervention or appearance.
(a) Actions or proceedings
When directed to do so pursuant to section 288b(c) of
this title, the Counsel shall intervene or appear as amicus
curiae in the name of the Senate, or in the name of an
officer, committee, subcommittee, or chairman of a committee
or subcommittee of the Senate in any legal action or
proceeding pending in any court of the United States or of a
State or political subdivision thereof in which the powers
and responsibilities of Congress under the Constitution of
the United States are placed in issue. The Counsel shall be
authorized to intervene only if standing to intervene exists
under section 2 of article III of the Constitution of the
United States.
(b) Notification; publication
The Counsel shall notify the Joint Leadership Group of
any legal action or proceeding in which the Counsel is of
the opinion that intervention or appearance as amicus curiae
under subsection (a) of this section is in the interest of
the Senate. Such notification shall contain a description of
the legal action or proceeding together with the reasons
that the Counsel is of the opinion that intervention or
appearance as amicus curiae is in the interest of the
Senate. The Joint Leadership Group shall cause said
notification to be published in the Congressional Record for
the Senate.
(c) Powers and responsibilities of Congress
The Counsel shall limit any intervention or appearance
as amicus curiae in an action or proceeding to issues
relating to the powers and responsibilities of Congress.
(Pub. L. 95-521, Title VII, Sec. 706, Oct. 26, 1978, 92
Stat. 1880.)
Sec. 16. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed
as constituting acquiescence by the Senate in any practice,
or in the conduct of any activity, not otherwise authorized
by law.[ Click ]
Senate may refer to House actions and Jefferson's Manual on state proclamations in Parliamentary language [ 31 of 83 ] Also, notes 224/225 is precedent for discussing the House proclamations, or failure to take prompt action on a matter. 32 of 83
20/93
They have this option, why is this power not used:
Resolved, That hereafter any committee of the Senate is
hereby authorized to bring suit on behalf of and in the name
of the United States in any court of competent jurisdiction
if the committee is of the opinion that the suit is
necessary to the adequate performance of the powers vested
in it or the duties imposed upon it by the Constitution,
resolution of the Senate, or other law.ref
Legal issue: Can the Senate Judiciary Chairman bring suit in Court because the Senate Intelligence Committee has failed inter alia
It
is further the purpose of this resolution to provide
vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence
activities of the United States to assure that such
activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws
of the United States.Click
Argument:
Given that the NSA activites do violate the Constitution, and that the intelligence committee Cannot assure -- as they are required to -- that the conduct is lawful and consistent with the Constitution, the intelligence committee cannot credibly be believed to meeting its mandate, and should have all the roles and oversight functions transferred to the Judiciary Committee.
Because the Senate Intelligence Committee has failed to assure the NSA activites are lawful, then the Senate Intelligence Committee should be shut down, and all lawful duties of the Committee should be transferred to a more competent Committee chairman who is more interested in asserting the rule of law and ensuring all NSA activites are consistent with the Constitution and that the Senate leadership can -- as required -- assure that the intelligence activities are lawful.
In any case in which a committee fails to report
any proposed legislation referred to it within the time
limit prescribed herein, such committee shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of such
proposed legislation on the thirtieth day following the day
on which such proposed legislation is referred to such
committee unless the Senate provides otherwise.[ Click ]
(c) Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as
prohibiting or otherwise restricting the authority of any
other committee to study and review any intelligence
activity to the extent that such activity directly affects a
matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.
(d) Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as
amending, limiting, or otherwise changing the authority of
any standing committee of the Senate to obtain full and
prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities
of any department or agency of the Government relevant to a
matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.[ Click ]
Senator Roberts has failed to meet the "standard of promptness" required:
Sec. 4. (a) The select committee, for the purposes of
accountability to the Senate, shall make regular and
periodic reports to the Senate on the nature and extent of
the intelligence activities of the various departments and
agencies of the United States. Such committee shall promptly
call to the attention of the Senate or to any other
appropriate committee or committees of the Senate any
matters requir
[[Page 127]]
ing the attention of the Senate or such other committee or
committees. [ Click ]
Which Senators was leaking classified information?
(e) Upon the request of any person who is subject to any
such investigation, the Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct\1\ shall release to such individual at the
conclusion of its investigation a summary of its
investigation together with its findings. If, at the
conclusion of its investigation, the Select Committee on
Standards and Conduct\1\ determines that there has been a
significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized
disclosure by a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate,
it shall report its findings to the Senate and recommend
appropriate action such as censure, removal from committee
membership, or expulsion from the Senate, in the case of a
Member, or removal from office or employment or punishment
for contempt, in the case of an officer or employee.
Which elected officials are supporting this immigration strike [ Click ]
- What have the RNC or President said about the immigration-related strikes?
5 USC 7311 compares to the Senate:
993 Sec. 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike
against the Government
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title
5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in
the Government of the United States or the government of the
District of Columbia if he--
(1) advocates the overthrow of our
constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he
knows advocates the overthrow of our
constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the
right to strike, against the Government of the
United States or the government of the District
of Columbia; or
Ref
Cheney as President of Senate has no say in the Constitutional Discussion [ 29/102]
Remember, former Presidents of the United States -- like Clinton and Carter -- can speak on the Senate Floor. This will trigger a floor action in the Senate well to respond.
Questions on procedure are not parliamentary inquiry, and the Chair may not refuse to address the issue. 2 of 4; 978
If Specter is raising an issue of raising revenue, this matter must start in the House; and minority party members can challenge Constitutionality. page 53 [30 of 102
When a point of order is made against an amendment on the grounds that it violates the Constitution, that point of order must be submitted by the Chair to the Senate for a vote, and when so submitted is subject to a motion to table; 217 but if the Senate is operating under cloture the point of order is not debatable. 21*
Over under rule -- coupling resolution with the final committee report 4 of 11; Page 960; Note 25
Constitutional Issues in Senate Debatable: Page 735 [ Click: See page 20/83]
Amendments [ Click ]
Amendment 8 of 102 shows us that -- before it becomes part of the bill, the Amendment must be acted on by the Senate. But this is backwards when it comes to Article 1 Section 9 -- the original bill -- without the Amendment -- is not legal in that we already know the proposed expenditure and activity violates the Constitution.
Amendment to propose adding funding back to NSA/DoJ out of order 28/102: "If a committee amendment proposes [?] to reduce the amount of an appropriation, an amendment thereof [?] proposing to restore the original amount of the bill is not in order, since the rejection of the Committee amendment would bring about that result.203"
Bolton's salary needs to be audited per Article 1 Section 9 [Recess appointment salaries 2/16 ]
Senate Options, which they refuse to assert: Click
Article 1 Section 9: No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law
Contempt proceedings and information to Grand Jury [ Click ]
Censure of Senators [ Click ] The States need to start taking action on starting Censure proceedings, and filing these with the Senate Clerk. If the Senate will not protect the Constitution, then the State officials have an obligation to do so. Any RNC claim that the states have "more important things to do other than focus on the Constitution" also do no deserve to be given serious attention and are allegedly equally complicit in the alleged conspiracy and rebellion to undermine the rule of law and American Constitution.
posted by Constant @ 9:29 AM
<< Home