Constant's pations

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

Saturday, July 22, 2006

NSA: Amicus Brief Needed To Strike Down Specter Bill

If the legal community is serious about their concerns with the Specter Bill, I expect the ABA leadership to get off their rear end, and immediately draft an amicus brief based on these precedents.

Related: Specter's signing statements bill -- another worthless piece of legislation. Get the ABA to challenge it, otherwise the ABA is part of the problem: Assent to unconstitutional conduct, and failure to use resources they know, or should know, should be put to use. They have a mandatory obligation to act to protect the Constitution, and they have no discretion. The 5 USC 3331 test for the ABA is whether they did their mortal best. Ref

* * *

American Bar Association Leadership,

The ABA, if it is serious about protecting the Constitution, must file an Amicus Brief with all the NSA-related courts, with the express intent of striking down the proposed Specter Bill.

It is not lawful, and is unconstitutional for the Congress to pass a bill targeting ongoing litigation. All other considerations are irrelevant. The technical details and flaws of the Specter Bill, although interesting, are a secondary issue, and need not be discussed.

This Congress refuses to listen, will not act, and cannot be told to lead. The battle for the Constitution will have to be waged in the Judicial Branch. Until the ABA stops talking to the comatose Congress, and start asserting the rule of law before the Court on this unconstitutional Specter Bill, there's no reason the public should believe the ABA is serious about solving problems, asserting the rule of law, or protecting the Constitution with action.

The public needs to see the ABA file an amicus brief using these precedents. Until we see the ABA leadership show a marginal interest in ensuring this Specter Bill is defeated where it most counts -- in court, there's no reason anyone should take the ABA leadership comments seriously. Rather, this is merely more of the Specter-hand waving: Feign concern, but not assert the rule of law to focus resources to protect the Constitution.

* * *

Imprudent Use of Congressional Time

Putting aside the issue of whether Congress will or will not pass this bill, why is Congress being allowed to debate, much less pass a bill that affects ongoing litigation. It is clearly established that the bill, even if passed, is not enforceable. Let's look at the core governance problems which raise fundamental issues of legitimacy.

A. Supremacy Clause in Constitution and ABA Oaths

Let's focus on the most important issue: the Constitution. It's not lawful for Congress to pass this kind of legislation. When a bill is not Constitutional, we need not consider with the trivial confirming the same conclusion.

This Congress, ABA, and RNC lobbying crowd cannot explain why we should believe this debate is serious. Rather than striking the Specter Bill from the record, this leadership hopes to create the illusion of oversight. They freely choose to spend time on matters that are dilatory, unproductive, and unconstitutional. They defy their oath 5 USC 3331.

B. Oath of Office 5 USC 3331 Violations

Neither the Congress, the ABA, nor the K Street Lobbyists have their Constitutional duties clear. They cannot explain why they are discussing the "merits/weaknesses" of a particular bill, when the first issue -- the Constitutional issue -- is not adequately covered. Your oath is to the Constitution. I expect you to assert your oath, especially now, given the Constitutional issues and pressing need to assert the rule of law.

C. Amicus Motions Before Court

There is no plan by legal community to ensure the constitutional concerns with this bill are channeled to the NSA litigants/court so that the Bill, even if signed into law, is struck down.

D. Expertise and Interest, Not Standing, Is Relevant When Filing An Amicus

There is no plan to provide to the NSA-plaintiffs-counsel concerns related to this bill, so that they -- as parties with "standing" -- can have the Specter bill struck down as unconstitutional.

E. Sovereignty And Civilian Oversight of ABA

The public has to remind the ABA leadership how to assert the rule of law and ensure the Constitution is protected. The ABA chooses to make speeches than take lawful action. The public, as the source of sovereignty, must compel the legal experts how to do their job.

If you have an attorney and you are a client of an ABA-licensed attorney, I encourage you to immediately call your attorney and find out what excuse they have for working on other non-Constitutional matters. Have them explain to you why they are not using pro bono resources to assist with this simple, but important amicus to assert the rule of law. They will likely offer you no straight answer. You have the option to fire your counsel and find another attorney who takes their oath of office seriously.

* * *


If you, as a member of the American Bar Association and officer of the court, have a concern with this Specter bill and the legal background to take action, where's your Amicus brief for the NSA court to review your concerns?

Until I see an Amicus brief from the legal community outlining your specific concerns with this Specter Bill -- that it is unconstitutional in that it targets specific litigation -- you're sending a clear signal: You would rather blog and promote your books, than ensure the Constitution is protected.

How would a patriot act? He'd get off his rear end, into the law library and craft an Amicus to put your arguments before the last forum that can do something about this: Your Judicial Branch.

Quite a jam you've put yourself with your delinquent bar fees: Plenty of talk on your blog, but no lawful way to enter the court room -- You no longer have current standing with the bar.

You’re an officer of the court -- or used to be, but you still have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, not your blog, and not your personal writing career. You've spent too much time coming up with excuses why your IP number does not does not match your roommate. It's time to ask whether your talents are or are not going to be put to use where they count: In court, and ensuring this Specter Bill is struck down as unconstitutional. Until you do that, you will never impress me.

You are part of the problem. We the People are your source of revenue, and we can make new rules that will strip you of you ABA monopoly, and craft language that will impose civilian oversight boards, not just over the ABA but over competing legal associations that will do a better job than the failed crew in the ABA.

We have options. You are running out of time.

* * *

What You Can Do

Forward a copy of this content to the ABA, your attorney, and others who may have an interesting in the Constitution. [Note: There is an 800-number in Chicago: Ref ]

Ask them where you can send this content as an e-mail, and share it with your friends.

Here is their service center info: or 1.800.285.2221 Ref

* * *

Call Your State Legislators And Complain About Your State CLE

CLE stands for "Continuing Legal Education." Some in the ABA would like to attend conferences in Hunting Beach, California and learn about backrubs, than spend time reading the Constitution or solving problems. It's been five years since the 2001-era abuses, yet the ABA has "finally" decided to "think about" issues related to Geneva and the rule of law. The ABA has been asleep. Time is up.

Include your State in the Google Search to find your state Bar disciplinary board: Here. Let your state disciplinary board know that you're not happy, that you think the legal community has let you down, and that you expect there to be some quick action on this Specter Bill: We need to see an Amicus brief, or they can find other clients.

Share with others what you state boards say. If they say this is “not their issue,” remind them that they have an oath to the Constitution, and a duty to report malfeasance, and evidence of war crimes to their state boards. Ask them why they are refusing to take action on a matter of law which they know, or should know, is not Constitutional? If they say, “not my job,” ask them why they wanted to be a lawyer, and whether they really can look at themselves in the mirror when their clients have to lecture them on ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Remind them that it is not impressive when the public has to know the laws, Constitution, and their jobs better than the so-called experts. Their conduct raises substantial questions whether they warrant the fees they are commanding: We get marginal legal results and pervasive attacks on the Constitution, yet not a peep out of the ABA. Not impressive.

Where's the National Conference Been

They have an association of state legislators. Ref What's their excuse for their silence on this matter?

It's one thing to have a conference; quite another to realize that the conference hasn't done anything. The public has to remind the States Legislatures of their option to draft proclamations calling for impeachment using House Rule 603, and write a New Constitution.

We can arrange a New Constitution and keep the legal community out of the discussion. They shall be denied the power to have any input.

They wished this.