Constant's pations

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

Monday, June 19, 2006

Magna Charta: Should We Be So Lucky

What happens when the American government cannot sustain public confidence, and fails to do what the ancients were guaranteed?


Some consider the Magna Charta to be old, and ancient. Should we be so lucky to have a government that meet these standards. If you look at the Magna Charta, you can see the American government fails to meet these minimal requirements.

The Charta, and all its requirements, needs to be used as a model for what can be done to remedy this failed American government, and modernize the failed American Bar Association: “We promise to protect the Constitution, and not do things that would make the Magna Charter look like an improvement.”

[All citations below are from: J. C. Holt’s “Magna Charta”, The Encyclopedia Americana: Grolier Incorporated, Volume 18 M-Mexico City, p. 92-94, 1997.]

* * *

Unlike today’s Constitution which effectively has no formal “defender,” the Magna Charta had a strict provision that certain people would ensure the Magna Charta was enforced:
“Finally, it stipulated that the enforcement of the Charter was to be supervise by Twenty Five elected barons empower to receive complaints against the king and to compel him, by distraining on his lands and castles, to redress the alleged wrongs.” [Holt]

Holt reminds us:

  • King John swore an oath to the terms;

  • Copies of the charter were published, and

  • All were required to swear allegiance to the terms and to the Twenty Five.

    A similar defender is needed. This Supreme Court fails to defend this Constitution,.

    * * *

    Scalia wants to defer to the private sector to oversee government, yet the civilian oversight is meaningless. Look at the failure of Congress and outside agenices to reivew information, get access, or do what should be done to protect this Constitution [ Click ]

    In fact, it's the outside companies, Scalia's "commercial entities," that are willing to violate the law.

    Law enforcement does nothing as the outside entities violate the law.

    * * *

    American courts regularly cite English common-law as precedent. Look at what we have with the Magna Charta, putting to rest this legal fiction called “inherent power”:
    ”In the 17th century, the common-lawyer opponents of the Stuart Kings, led by Sir Edward Coke, deployed the Charter and the six statues as the main element in an ancient law that they claimed the royal prerogrative had no power to infringe.” [Holt]
  • Where are the American lawyers?

  • What “precedent” are they relying on to say the President, or anyone for that matter, can violate the law?

  • Why are there no lawyers invoking this 17th Century precedent to remind the Executive he is no king, and that he is not above the law?

  • What set of conditions is permitting this non-sense to go unchallenged?

  • How can anyone around the globe believe that the American model is anything worth respecting when the results are abysmally at odds with what was reasonably expected of the 1200s in Britain?

    * * *

    There used to be real defenders of great documents. Look at what they had many years ago:
    “In addition, Magna Charta sought to control many aspects of royal administration:. . . It provide for the election of 12 knights in each shire to investigate evil practices in local government and in the administration of the royal forest.” [Holt]

    Those assigned with this duty have failed. Today, this job, in part, falls upon the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility. Yet, this “leadership” refuses to assent to this standard, blocks investigations, and pretends the laws do not apply.

    An oath is a promise to do what is otherwise not easy. This Congress, responsible for reviewing the compliance with the laws, refuses to investigate the illegal activity. Rather, the responsibility falls on local officials, who may be harassed or have funds shut off if they dare to assert the rule of law, or refuse to assent to the lawlessness.

    Hamas wants to do something, but is not paid. There is no need for an American government that refuses to do what it is paid to do.

    * * *

    The American government has failed. Nothing is done when the legal community spews forth non-sense to justify illegal wars, misconduct, violation of treaties, and other conduct which is contrary to our system of laws.

    Look at the mess that this failed American governance has as its legacy:

  • A reckless Executive who ignores violations of the law – this is tyranny;

  • An ineffectual Congress which to restrain itself from spending money on illegal wars – this is malfeasance; and

  • A failed Judicial branch which refuses to investigate it attorneys (“court officers”) for advocating illegal war -- these are war crimes.

    The American government has no legitimacy. This government, where checks and balances fails, then compels the public to do what the government refuses to do: Assert the rule of law and provide leadership.

    Who needs a government, when it refuses to do what a government should do: Provide order, compel assent to standards, and protect the very document it swore to protect.

    * * *

    These buffoons on the Supreme Court reward those who violate the law and ignore the rules. There is no legal foundation for any American lawyer to argue the President has any “inherent power” to violate domestic law, especially when those laws are clearly promulgated, and the rights are clearly established.

    Yet, this Supreme Court, despite the Constitution and the “judicial power” it has, celebrates those who ignore the rules. That is stupid.

    What other rules, which law enforcement deems “quaint,” will the court say, “It is a “benefit” to society to reward those who ignore the Supreme Court rules.”

    It’s clear that the law enforcement deems the US Constitution quaint. Despite clearly established rights against unreasonable searches, the law enforcement continued to self-issue warrants called “national security letters.” Were they trusted to “self regulate”? No, they can only be trusted to abuse power, and lie to avoid sanctions.

    This law enforcement considers the Constitution quaint in other ways. How do you explain their disdain for the FISA requirements. It was not a “civil remedy” which the FISA court used to sanction the FBI agents who lied to the FISA court in the affidavit. No, it was the court -- after it waded through the trash from Addington – that “got around to” imposing the much needed sanctions on the FBI.

    How absurd for the Supreme Court to pretend that a “civil remedy” can work, especially in cases where the proceedings are secret, and the stupid, lazy court officials “rely on” the DoJ and DoD officials that have lied about WMD.

    There is no needed circuit breaker. How absurd for Scalia to claim that the “civilian remedy” will work. Clearly, it’s failed. Despite the “big scary possibility” of sanctions, DoD and DoJ have lied about WMD; have spewed forth non-sense about details, and continue to violate the rules. This Supreme Court, by way of “leadership,” says, “Hay, whatever you want.”

    How absurd for Scalia to claim civilian remedies are appropriate. Law enforcement regularly destroys evidence, and fails to comply with Brady requirements. Brady is the rules which compel the prosecutor to provide to the defendant all the information.

    Civilian oversight is impossible when the court hides the proceedings: Look at Congress. They are the ultimate civilian “oversight,” and clearly they aren’t capable of making heads or tails of this. At every turn, to avoid “oversight” this legal crew invokes privilege in order to hide violations of the law.

    * * *

    The US Supreme Court favors outsourcing government oversight. Consider this link which talks about the failure of the civilianization process: Even when tasks are outsourced, it doesn't address the problem: Ineffeciency.

    Scalia's comments about the "efficiencies" and "payoffs" of relying on "civilian, non-government"-oversight mechanisms merely confirms the failed system.

    * * *

    Again, as to the fiction that the civilian oversight of law enforcement can be “just fine,” look at what law enforcement did with FISA: They ignored the law, suppressed teh evidence, and then would have us believe, "It's for our own good."

    what a crock. “Hay, we know he’s guilty, so we’ll suppress the evidence which might be useful to the defendant, because it’s to the benefit to society to have these people off the streets.” When Addington feared court detection of the illegal, warrantless searches, he didn’t “assent” to a civilian remedy; he suppressed information related to that misconduct so that he could defy the civilians.

    The prosecutors are violating Brady; and then asking Americans – as they ask Iraqis – to believe in this fiction of the “Great American society and rule of law,” all the while they openly ignore – and reward those who violate -- the laws, rules, and requirements.

    How absurd.

    * * *

    Lawyers like to ignore inconvenient precedents. Where are the leaders in the ABA who, surely, could rely on the “precedent of Sir Edward Coke” and stipulate that the NSA and President have no power to:

  • Violate his oath

  • Violate the Constitution

  • Ignore the Bill of Rights

  • Create excuses to ignore the rights

  • Create new procedures to act outside the law

  • Usurp powers he does not have, nor has been delegated

    The simple answer is that the American legal community is staffed by a load of lazy idiots, who refuse to do what must be done to lawfully protect the Constitution. This is called recklessness, negligence, and malfeasance.

    They assent to non-sense. They “get around to” possibly looking at the violations of the law; then assent to more non-sense:

  • What are you daring to “protect” when, despite the paper, you ignore the principles, practices, and rules – you do not perform, but provide excuses.?

  • What is the reason that the American legal community has not organized itself to investigate those judicial officers who put “something else” before their loyalty to the US Constitution – you do not inspire confidence, but disdain.

  • What kind of non-sense is the legal community embracing to justify their inaction, and assent to this non-sense spewing forth from Addington – you do not provide leadership but reckless disregard for your oath?

  • How does the American legal community justify the fees they are charging – you do not provide service, but abysmal work products.

    All we hear are excuses for inaction. Pointing to the heavens, but the Constitution remains in the vault of the National Archives. Yet, this stupid Court rewards those who ignore the rules; and celebrates the fact that a well promulgated rule has been ignored; then simply rewarding others who want to ignore the laws.

    They spew forth non-sense that there is some sort of “divine right” of the President to not do what he promised to do – follow the law. There is no “divine right” nor is there “inherent authority” to put anything else, but the Constitution, first.

    * * *

    The Magna Cara required the
    ”“king himself to conform to lawful process: . . . ‘No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived or outlawed or exiled against him, except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.’ ” [Holt]

    Today, this is done in secret; sanctions are imposed without warrants, jury, or the court; and those who swore an oath to this Constitution defy it by refusing to ensure its requirements are followed: Lawful warrants, and an assent to the law of the land.

    We’re told, not asked, to assent to “whatever they do” as acceptable. Wrong. Those who advocate this absurdity are not acceptable to a civilized society.

    * * *

    Unlike the Magna Charta which said that all freedom comes from the King, the Constitution recognizes the inherent freedom of all people. This is not something we are given, but something we always have.

    Today, despite the rights we have, they are being taken away. We have been denied:

  • The right to a fair trial – told to shut up, and enjoy solitary confinement without charges;

  • The right to competent leadership – told to look at other things, not at the wrong dong;

  • The right to have our grievances heard – told to shut up, under threat of arrest;

  • The right to have only laws followed when waging war – told to assent to more war crimes by arrogant US military;

  • The right to have our peace, security, and prosperity protected at all times – told that we should enjoy having our homes and privacy invaded as it serves a “higher interest.”

    Which God is that? No one swore an oath to “higher interests,” but the oath was made to God, to protect This Constitution.

    * * *

    This government does the opposite:

  • Makes up rules to justify ignoring other rules;

  • Openly defies the rules of the court, which the court then (because they were ignored) says do not apply.

    This government is just as reckless as the crew the British had in the 1200s; but unlike the British, the Americans have pretended they are better or have a better system of governance, but the results are just as abysmal.

    Who are the arrogant Americans to preach to the world about “how great America is” when the Americans can’t provide a minimal system of justice to its own people, and those they illegally conquer.

    The Americans are ashamed of their results. They do not, and cannot, stand with pride for what they are doing in Iraq. They make up lies. Their Embassy tells some of the story: Americans are afraid of admitting they are associated with the “forces of good,” because the locals know the Americans are not good: They bring chaos.

    Geneva imposes requirements on an occupying power to maintain security. The US has failed to meet this test.

    * * *

    This Supreme Court created rules which stated how law enforcement can enter a private dwelling, even when they have a warrant: They are to knock; if they fail to do that, then the evidence is to be suppressed.

    This is known as the “exclusionary rule” so that there will be an incentive for the law enforcement to otherwise respect the rights of the people: To be free form unreasonable searches.

    This Supreme Court, despite recognizing that the law enforcement knew of this rule, has cast aside the rule. That is wrong.

    * * *

    If there is “such a problem with instability” in other countries, why not take the disgruntled troops in Somalia, and force them to impose order in Iraq?

    Surely, if there is a problem with “people in Somalia not having something productive to focus on,” why aren’t the Americans moving those who are making trouble, to Iraq where their “skills at stirring things up” could be put to good use?

    * * *

    We don’t need this President, this Congress, or this Judiciary. They say the rules do not apply, or should not be enforced. They are useless. We need only one thing: This Constitution; or a New One if this government stands in the way.

    They have collectively pretended to follow their oath; yet, it is clear they have no regard for the even the Magna Charta which supposedly mandated we needed a Constitution.

  • What is to be done when the “flaws of the Magna Charta” – which triggered the American Revolution – are superior to the drivel we get form the Supreme Court.

  • Who are those arrogant buffoons on the Supreme Court who say it is “OK” if the law enforcement ignores a clearly established rule; and that the “value” of ignoring that rule is that society is better off.

    How absurd. The goal of the Constitution is to mandate action, and compel a standard of conduct by government. This Supreme Court has missed this lesson. Rather, it does the opposite, and throws away the requirements, and pretend that “another goal” is valuable. That arrogant attitude is the very attitude King John had when he continued to tax the British People in the 1200s: “Hay, what are they going to do?”

    There is something we can do. We can make a new Constitution. Federalist 78 says that we can, when we have a ceremony, impose on all three branches new standards of conduct. There’s nothing the government can do to stop this. We can also impeach those Judicial Officers on the Supreme Court that fail to protect the Constitution.

    Any Judicial, legislative, or executive Conduct which defies the Court rules should be stricken as void. Yet, this court does the opposite: Rewards conduct which ignores the so-called “Supreme” court. It is a mockery of justice, and there is no reason any American should have confidence in the American legal system.

    * * *

    We the People can follow Federalist 78, and craft a New Constitution. We can do this outside Article V.

    It is only government that has to follow Article V to change the Constitution; We the People may draft a new constitution and impose on this government, failed legal community, and lazy Supreme Court and Congress, the standards and requirement which will impose a greater duty that what they freely choose.

    How arrogant of Scalia to claim that the “professional” policy force – through civilian oversight – will make government sanctions unneeded. How absurd! The reason the civilian oversight boards were created was that government failed to do what it should have done: Internally addressed the issue. Yet, this government refuses to cooperate with civilian oversight, hiding the illegal conduct and suppressing discovery.

    The idea of checks and balances and a separation of power is to make the other two branches force the third to do what it should; if we have to “rely on” civilian tools to mandate assent to law, why do we need a government? The only answer this failed legal crew in DC and the buffoons on the Supreme Court have as an answer is: To collect taxes so that they might then use that money to impose power and abuse those who do not assent to this non-sense. In short, they’ve become an entity that only services itself. That is arrogant abuse of power, more so when We the People can figure out what is going on, and this federal government gets in the way of dong what should be done: Maintain civility, and ensure there is a system in place which self-regulates.

    If this government is not willing to assert the rule of law within government, what basis is there for any Iraqi to believe that democracy works? Scalia’s words clearly tell the Iraqis the opposite: “Even when government fails, you’re on your own to impose order and solve problems.” So much for self-government and the American model.

    How arrogant, especially to the Iraqis who are attempting to simply just get by, get food, and not get shot when they are inside their private homes. Yes, it was better under Saddam; just as it is better for Americans to live under the Magna Charta, not this non-sense from this failed government.

    This Supreme Court is stupid. It uses non-sense arguments. It uses circular reasoning. There is no “higher law of necessity” that permits any of the buffoons on the Supreme Court to stipulate it is the “public interest” compels us to assent to a standard whereby the law enforcement is rewarded for ignoring the rules.

    “Oh, if you don’t want to follow that court rule of evidence, then that is OK.” Wrong!

    The rules of evidence are from Congress, they are not something that the courts can cast aside out of “state interest.”

    Where is the predictability, if each time the court makes a rule, the court fails to sanction those who violate the very rules which the court said was important. If you are going to have a rule, then that rule of must be enforced. This Supreme Court does the opposite: Creates a twisted, absurd legal argument to pretend the rules – despite the social value of that rule – can be ignored; and that violations of that rule achieve a greater purpose.

    What stupidity!

    We the People have not taken any oath to assent to stupidity; nor have we promised to keep all judicial officers immune for their reckless disregard for their oaths.

    How many “rules” will this Supreme Court – that is clearly stated were required, and that law enforcement must follow – say, “It is valuable if that rule is violated.” That is absurd.

    * * *

    Federalist 78 reminds us that the Judicial Officers have a duty to protect the Constitution. If the laws of the land, and clearly promulgated court rules – which the law enforcement community agrees to follow – are ignored, and the court rewards those who ignore the rules, then how can the Supreme Court have anyone believe that any social value or benefit is achieved?

    On the contrary, the public should take note: If there is a rule that someone chooses to ignore, the legal community crafts a “high social utility rule” which “permits” the law enforcement to ignore the rule; and then rely on the court to “see the wisdom” of ignoring the laws, rules, and procedures; then rule that the violated-rules have no force.

    That is a complete destruction of the notion of good order, discipline, and respect for the law. Rather, we have the opposite: Create disdain for the law and rules; and a misplaced hope by law enforcement – if they violate the law and rules -- could have that existing requirement cast aside as a “social benefit.”

    When the Judicial Officers, even when they are in the Supreme Court, refuse to protect the Constitution, then they may be impeached.

    We see what’s going on: Where the law enforcement doesn’t like a rule, it ignores it. Rather than remind law enforcement they are to assent to the Constitution and court rules, this Court has done the opposite:

  • Pretend the rule, which law enforcement knew, doesn’t apply;

  • Change the subject, from whether law enforcement did or didn’t follow the rules, to whether or not the disregard for those rules achieved a higher purpose; and

  • Changed the focus (from whether the Constitution is protected, or whether there is a deterrent on law enforcement to avoid violating the Constitution; and shifted attention) to whether the violation of those court rules achieves a better purpose.

    This is absurd, outrageous, and is something the public should take note: The Court is not serving the Constitution; rather, it is servicing “something else”: The rule of necessity, not law. Read Federalist 78, and ask yourself: Are these Judicial Officers in the Supreme Court defying their oath to protect this Constitution?

    The answer is loudly, “Yes,” and they deserve to be investigated, impeached, and removed from office. We the People may make new rules to ensure This Constitution is protected, even from the lazy, arrogant, and stupid American government officials, no smarter than King John’s enabling monkeys.

    They do not have a “social utility oath” – if the Supreme Court invokes that absurd rule, they would have us embrace what Jefferson in 1810 said could be the best thing to maintain order: Martial law, tyranny, and a dictatorship. This absurd “law of necessity” is at the heart of Addington-Cheney’s legal non-sense in the Iran-Contra Minority Report: All the case law they’ve cited has been twisted to “prove” something, which is otherwise not consistent with the Constitution.

    We have drifted back to the pre Magna Charta days. Look around you: Excuses to ignore the law; arguments presented as if they were “holy scripture,” but they are simply the rambling non-sense of attorneys who put a loyalty to necessity above their oath to the Constitution.

    If the American legal community wants to assert a “law of necessity” doctrine, what’s keeping them from moving to Iraq where they could invoke that principle? Oh, wait, they’re already there and making a mess of things – to which the Iraqis are daring to say, “We can do better.”

    So can America.