NSA: State Cause of Action Against US

All States are entitled a republican form of government. When the states are denied that right, and the US government refuses to ensure there is a republican form of government in practice, the States have standing to claim a judicial remedy.

* * *

Madison, in the wake of the ineffectual Articles of Confederation, focused his attention on creating a coercive power within Congress to compel the states to act. In 2006, the opposite is true: There needs to be a mechanism to compel the Congress to act.

This note presents this argument by solely looking at the language within the Federalist Papers. The goal is, iner alia:

To outline a clear legal basis for the States to lawfully bring suit against the United Stats for failing to ensure that the individual states can enjoy a Republican Form of Government;

To show the arguments behind establishing the Senate has been turned on its head, and that the Senate is not doing what it was designed to do; and

To illustrate that the potential for executive breaches of the Constitution is not a novel concept, but well discussed as a justification to support the Constitution; yet, the Constitution fails to mandate action when the players refuse to assert their oath.

* * *

Section I: The problem

Members of Congress, despite taking an oath to preserve the Constitution, have failed individually in their promise to do just that.

The potential risk of executive breach of the Constitution was well known; the structure of the Senate was designed to act as a check.

This Congress, despite the Constitutional authority and tools to do its job has failed to protect the Supreme Law, but proposes legislation that unconstitutionally usurps Article III powers by targeting specific ongoing litigation.

When we have this many abuses, it is absurd for the Federalist Government and DoJ to assert that the States have no standing; or that this is a federal issue. Rather, it is a Constitutional violation, which the states are entitled to a remedy.

* * *

Section II: The Federalist Papers

Federalist 48: "It appears, also, that the executive department had not been innocent of frequent breaches of the constitution."Ref

Federalist 47: "The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act" Ref

Federalist 43: Guarantee of republican form of government Ref

Federalist 43: "the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained. But a right implies a remedy" 43

Federalist 63: The justification for the Senate was to do what it refuses to do: Permanency in its purpose and focus to address problems.

The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the legislative department, which, having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.Ref

* * *

Section III: Oath of Office Violations

Members of Congress freely take a 5 USC 3331 oath of office. The oath is simply a promise, but creates an agency between the Member of Congress and the people they representation. it is irrelevant that the people in some districts support violations of the law; or refuse to take action. There has been a failure of the Congress to assert its oath.

Federalist 44: Oath creates an agency between Federal officials and We the People. ["The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. "]Ref

Federalist 78: People are in charge of agency ["the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents"] Ref

* * *

Section IV: Lawful Coercion Against US, Congress

The problem We the People have is when the system of governance breaks down, and the Federal Government must be coerced, through lawful use of force by Court direction, to assent to their oaths of office, and protect the Constitution.

Federalist 50

IT MAY be contended, perhaps, that instead of OCCASIONAL appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, PERIODICAL appeals are the proper and adequate means of PREVENTING AND CORRECTING INFRACTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

* * *

Section V: Congress cannot be trusted

The Constitution was designed and argued for on the now-invalid premise that We the People, despite being the source of power, cannot be trusted to avoid passion. It was argued in the 1700s that the people, because they were incapable of taking the time to focus their attention on the issues of the day, could not make informed decisions.

Today, the issues have turned upside down, inter alia:

We the People have to develop an oversight system, repeating the very provisions within the Federalist Papers which the Senate was supposed to perform;

The Congress cannot be trusted to adhere to its promise, nor fulfill its agency obligations; and

Despite information at Congress' fingertips to make reasonable judgments, the People have to remind the Congress of their duties, which Congress refuses to perform;

We the People can well articulate specific examples of malfeasance, to which both the Congress and the Executive refuse to accept, or show contrition; rather, they argue in a dilatory manner with non-sense excuses.

* * *

Section VI: Violation of Social Compact

This United States no longer guarantees, in violation of the Constitution, to any state a republican form of government. Rather, it refuses to enforce what it has a duty to enforce.

The Constitution and the basis for We the People assenting to this document are premised on conditions this Congress no longer recognizes, assents to, or adheres to, in violation of their individual 5 USC 3331 oaths of office.

* * *

Section VII Authority For Suit Against United States

Article IV Section 4 guarantees to all a republican form of government. This right attaches with it the promise of a remedy; and creates standing for the States to bring suit against the United States government.

The Judge Walker's opinion in the EFF litigation shows that the Government's statements are dubious on claims of national security. Further, Gonzalez before Senator Feinstein stated we are not at war, thereby eliminating any lawful or credible basis for the commander in chief to breach the Constitution.

The States may bring suit against the United states to ensure a republican form of government.

* * *

Section VIII State Cause of Action

The way forward is to create a lawsuit outside the current FISA-Specter charade, and force DoJ to send mixed signals on Multi-Jurisdiction litigation: DoJ wants a consolidated complaint on NSA; why not the same for a state cause of action to enforce Article IV Section 4.

The States Attorney Generals should expand the effort from simply enforcing personal liberty for NSA-related violations, and include the other cause of action:

Unconstitutional activities are not being investigated;

The Senate is failing to do the specific function it was argued it would solve;

Violations of international treaties are premised on war, which Gonzalez said does not exist as a FISA requirement;

The Executive refuses to enforce the laws, violated rights, and refuse to stop spending money on illegal things;

The Congress passes unconstitutional acts, permits interference with lawful demonstrations and media reporting.

* * *

Section IX What you can do

A. Encourage your State Attorney to bring suit against the United States over Article IV Section 4 violation. Contact your State Attorney General, and remind them of the Article IV Section 4 obligation of the Federal government to guarantee a republican form of government. That promise to protect your state attaches with it the obligation of the Federal Government to permit remedies.

B. Let others know you do not agree with the DoJ Arguments from Keisler that the States have no standing to bring suit over NSA violations of state citizen privacy rights. Rather, the DoJ Staff Attorneys and Executive have jointly agreed to violate the Supreme Law, yet (absurdly) claim there is nothing that can be done. Where there is a wrong and clearly established right, there is a lawful remedy.