Force the President to Preserve the Constitution, Rule of Law for All
This explains how to inspire within the spirit of the President a renewed appreciation for the Constitution.
While you review this, consider Law Prof. Jonathan Turley's argument that the States can lawfully prosecute a sitting President. [ Discuss ]
Here is what the States can do -- any of the fifty (50) -- to lawfully prosecute a sitting President for signing into law an illegal Military Commissions Bill, and his other illegal action: Read this. Share with your friends. [ Discuss here and contact Prof. John Turley at Georgetown if you want more info: Contact info ]
The way forward is to recalibrate President. All Presidential powers and rights can be ignored. If the President has any power, make him use that power to fight for every right he had deprived others.
Until the President, Members of Congress, and DoJ Staff prove that they will demand Constitutional rights for themselves, there is no reason to believe they view the Constitution as real constraints. Their abuse of power need not be tolerated; rather, it may be lawfully reciprocated. This explains how to lawfully do this.
There are some things you can do in your state to test whether your leadership is or is not serious about protecting your State Constitution, and assert their oath. State officials who refuse to discuss these issues are not willing to use their lawful power to protect your rights, your Constitution, or do their job. They should be voted out of office.
There’s been some discussion that nothing can be done to prevent the abuse of presidential power. This discussion shows that this is a myth. One way to force someone to so their job is to compel them to assert and invoke the very thing that they have denied others.
One strategy to lawfully retaliate against the President is to lawfully deny him of or not recognize all rights, powers, and privileges in the Constitution. This approach would be consistent with the oath to protect the Constitution by forcing the President to defend and protect what he otherwise ignores and violates.
One thing you can do is discuss with your state officials their plan to lawfully deprive rights of those who have illegally deprived rights of others. This approach would be appropriate at the state and federal level. The voters, when they see that the legislatures have a double standard, may be encouraged to ask: Why does my leadership have two standards on whether the Constitution is or is not protected?
If they refuse to discuss the issue, they are not willing to do all it takes to assert their oath of office. It could be argued that they have failed to do their moral best to protect the Constitution. This could be the basis to lawfully prosecute state officials for failing to assert their oath of office.
Applying the Legal Consequences of the Military Commissions Bill to the President, Members of Congress and DoJ Staff
This President and Members of Congress have illegally assented to violations of the Supreme Law. The Military Commissions Bill has illegally been drafted to retroactively deny rights protected under the Geneva Conventions. One of the privileges which all people are entitled is the privilege of having their case reviewed by a judicial officer to decide whether there is or is not a legal basis to detain them.
The question remains – once the President signs this illegal bill into law, what can be done. One approach is for the States to lawfully reciprocate by debating legislation that would similarly target the President for prosecution.
The approach works this way: Once the President says that the laws do not apply to some; then the State should lawfully retaliate by passing legislation that would similarly not recognize the same rights and privileges of the Constitution. The President and DoJ Staff will be forced to argue the very defenses and arguments they say the prisoners are not allowed to argue: That the act or language is not Constitutional; or that the act violates the Constitution. In response, the States may argue that because the President has not recognized the Constitution and the Congress has not enforced it, then there is no reason that anyone else should feel constrained to respect the Constitution which they otherwise ignore.
The point isn’t to ignore the Supreme Law. The point is to force the President to argue for rights, powers, and privileges that he otherwise denies to others.
Let’s consider the Constitution as a list of things which the President has ignored and violated; and look for ways to similarly not recognize his rights.
Religion: The States and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that will target the President alone, and forbid him from being near churches or making speeches. The President may argue that the bill is not lawful in that it denies him the right to speak or practice religion as he chooses. Conversely, the public may be encouraged to see that the President has two standards on religion and free speech: One for him – the right to call for illegal action – but another for everyone else – prohibited from speaking about his illegal conduct or abuse of power.
Seizure The state legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that will expressly target the President alone, and permit him to be lawfully seized on basis of accusation alone. This standard would substantially match the current illegal standard within the Military Commission Bill, and what could be applied to any American Citizen. The President and DoJ Staff will likely argue that this approach is not lawful; conversely, the public should be encouraged to ask: Why are there two standards on whether the President or any American is or is not seized.
Legal Defense: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to prohibit any private, state of federal money be spent or used to defend the President or provide for his physical protection. The President will likely argue that the statute expressly calls for this protection; conversely, the public should be encouraged to ask: Why are there two standards on whether laws are or are not enforced. If the President wants to enforce the laws requiring his physical protection, why is he against other laws which call for the same protections of prisoners under Geneva?
Warrants: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to draft legislation that would state that no warrant is required before arresting the President. The President and DOJ Staff will likely argue that this is not Constitutional, and that warrants are required. The public should be encouraged to ask why the President is granted the privilege of warrants before seizure, but the American public is not granted the same respect when it comes to electronic surveillance. The President cannot credibly argue that he has a superior right to warrants as the FISA expressly defines the situations where the public is afforded the same protection.
Multiple charges: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to draft legislation that will permit any state, court, or private entity to bring multiple criminal charges against the President for capital offenses. The President and DoJ Staff will likely argue that such a clause is not Constitutional; and that the Constitution expressly affords all people the right to be immune from multiple prosecutions. The public should be encouraged to respond that the President has already violated this standard, and has secretly issued charges without prospect of appeal; and that any person who is charged with a crime should have the right to have those charges adjudicated.
Speedy Trial: The state legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to draft legislation expressly denying only the President the right to a speedy trial; and deny him the right to juries; and permit unreasonable and excessive bails. The DoJ Staff and President will likely argue that this language is not Constitutional; the public should be encouraged to consider the inconsistency: The President is asking the public to assent to abusive treatment, but he wants a different standard for himself; and that the public is not guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, juries, or excessive bails. The President should not be permitted to enjoy rights, privileges, and immunities he has not uniformly enforced or ensured for all.
Judicial privileges: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to deny the President any and all judicial rights, privileges, or other protections. He shall be denied the right to appeal or rely on the writ of Habeas corpus. The President and DoJ Staff will likely argue that these changes are not Constitutional; the public should be encouraged to discuss the inconsistency – the President is denying these rights to some, there is no reason he should not suffer the same loss of rights as he has allowed others.
Involuntary Servitude: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to lawfully draft legislation that would recognize the President as a ward of the state, and that he shall remain within the White House without any legal authority to demand his release. In effect, he shall be made a slave to the Judicial system. The DoJ Staff will likely argue that this proposal is not Constitutional; the public should be asked to discuss whether the President would have the power to be immune to abuses he has inflicted upon others. It is not reasonable to believe that the President has a superior right to abuse others, but he is immune to that same abuse.
Presidential poison: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to treat the President as if he is poison; and only change their approach to the President when he chooses to treat others with the respect any person is owed. The States and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that will enforce against the President all treatment that would amount to abuse, so long as that abuse is permitted under the Military Commission Bill. Any standard of treatment this President has permitted under the Military Commission Bill should be lawfully imposed on the President while he is in any public forum; or any other place of detention. The DOJ Staff will likely argue that this is against the law, or that it is a violation of the Constitution. The public should be encouraged to discuss why the President is requiring himself to be treated with more respect than others are treated; and explain why prisoners are treated unfairly, but he should expect special treatment.
Poll Taxes: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to impose fines and excessive taxes on all Members of Congress to make it difficult for them to vote, engage in civil discourse, or otherwise participate as a full US citizen. The DOJ Staff and President will likely argue such standards are not Constitutional; the public should be encouraged to question why the Members of Congress and President are allowed to invoke the Constitution as a basis to prevent abuse, yet this Congress and President ignore the Constitution as a basis to inflict abuse.
Alcohol: This President has a known alcohol problem. For him, the States and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that expressly revokes the 21st Amendment, and makes it illegal for the President, DoJ Staff, or anyone in the Executive Branch to consume alcohol. The DOJ Staff will likely argue that this is not Constitutional; and that Amendments have to be recognized. The public should be encouraged to ask: Why are some Amendments related to alcohol being recognized, but those Amendments related to speedy trials, warrants, and other Bill of Rights ignored.
Presidential Death The Constitution outlines procedures in the event of Presidential death. This President claims to be a “born again” Christian; to achieve this state, the President would have had to have died. If he truly is a “born again” Christian, then would it not be reasonable to presume that – upon his death – he should have transferred the power of the Presidency to the Vice President. The public should be encouraged to question whether the President is in fact a “born again” Christian; if he truly has died and been reborn, then he should have transferred the power to the Vice President. Seeing not transfer for power, we cannot conclude that the President has ever died or been reborn.
Executive Pay: Members of Congress should be encouraged to deny all funds to the President, eliminate his compensation. The President and DoJ Staff will likely argue that this is not permitted, as Article II Section 1 “expressly states” that the President’s compensation shall not be reduced. The public should be encouraged to ask: Why are some potions of the Constitution recognized as unchangeable; but others sections like the Bill of Rights are randomly ignored by this Congress and President.
Treaties: Members of Congress should be encouraged to deny all funds for the President to engage in treaty making. Addington and the DoJ Staff will likely argue that this is an infringement on his power. The public should be asked to consider: Why is it permissible for the President to infringe on Judicial and Legislative power, but it is not lawful for the Legislature to infringe on his power.
Appointments: Members of Congress and the States should agree to transfer the appointment power of the President to the States. The DoJ Staff and President will likely argue that this is an illegal change to the Constitution. The public should be encouraged to consider why other changes to the Constitution – illegal denial of warrants, habeas, and other rights in the Constitution – should be recognized by Legislative decree or Presidential abuse.
State of Union: Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that requires the President to deliver his sate of the union from prison. The DOJ Staff and President will likely argue that the Congress has no express power to define how the President does his job; the public should be encouraged to recognize that the Constitution also does not permit the President or the Congress to define how Americans live, or whether they are required to assent to illegal violations of Geneva or unlawful war.
Impeachment: The State legislatures and Members of Congress should e encouraged to recognize a new standard for Presidential removals from office. The State legislatures and Members of Congress should be encouraged to draft legislation that will permit the President to be removed from office using lesser standards for minor trivial offenses. The DOJ Staff and President will likely argue that these changes are not permitted as they are not in the Constitution; the public should be encouraged to consider why the President is relying on a Constitution he has otherwise ignored. The President should not be able to state that something is or is not in the Constitution; all the while he has explained away the warrant requirement which is expressly in the Constitution. The President cannot have it both ways: He cannot argue that the Constitution expressly states something when it comes to his power and authority; but deny express terms within the Constitution to other people.
Budgets The States and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that will make any Presidential expenditure illegal. The DOJ Staff and President will likely argue that this illegally infringes on Presidential power. The voters should be encouraged to ask: Why is the President relying on the Constitution to defend his power, but he ignores the Constitution when abusing power or illegally asserting powers he has not been delegated.
Presidential vetoes: The States and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that will no longer recognize Presidential vetoes; and that all vetoes can be overridden by a simple voice vote by a minority of the Congress. The Legislatures should be able to self-appoint any and all powers to ignore the President. The President and DoJ Staff will likely argue that this is outside the Constitution and not permitted; the public should be encouraged to consider: Why is the President relying on language to protect his power, but ignoring the Constitutional language when it comes to rights. Just as the President has illegally rewritten laws permitting him to say that he will not enforce the law with signing statements, so too may the States rewrite the laws permitting them not to recognize the powers this President has abused or illegally created that he was not expressly delegated.
Congressional Acts If the President wants to issue signing statements – without using a veto – to say that he will not enforce the law; then the Congress can lawfully reciprocate: Make new laws which the President opposes; or enforce laws which the President has vetoed. The President will have to explain why Congress is denied the power to invoke extra-Constitutional powers, but the President invokes this power when asserting he has non-delegated powers to violate the Geneva Conventions. If the DOJ Staff can illegally make rules permitting abuse; then Congress and the State legislators should have the same power – to make rules permitting abuse of DoJ Staff counsel during disbarment. Any state legislator unwilling to permit the same abuses will be hard pressed to justify why prisoner abuse is acceptable, but DoJ Staff counsel which endorses this abuse should be immune to a similar standard of abuse.
Writ of Habeas The states and Members of Congress should be encouraged to take all power from the President, and lawfully jail him without any prospect of release. The DoJ Staff and President will likely argue that this bill is not lawful as it violates the Constitutional guarantee against indefinite imprisonment; and that it illegally denies him the right to a trial. The public should be encouraged to contrast the President’s treatment: That he would deny the rights to some, but not permit himself to be denied of the same rights. The President’s approach to the law is inconsistent and cannot be lawfully recognized.
Contracts: The States and Members of Congress should be encouraged to create language that makes it illegal for any firm to do business with the US government. The US government is illegally engaged in war crimes; all financial support for the President or Members of Congress cannot be presumed to be legal; rather, all contracts with the Government should be presumed to be illegal. The President and DoJ Staff will likely argue that this unreasonably interferes with commerce, contracts, and other financial exchanges. The public should be encouraged to ask why some transactions are presumed to be lawful and protected; but other transactions, without any evidence, are deemed to be illegal and the basis to jail someone without prospect of a trial.
The above points are intended to spark discussion. The point isn’t to necessarily have the laws enforced uniformly; rather it is to force the President to demand rights and privileges that he otherwise denies to others.
Consider the Military Commissions bill which denies habeas; is an unlawful bill of attainder; violates the oath; unlawfully permits the Executive to assert Article I/III powers; and essentially permits the Members of Congress and President to deny their oath and engage in illegal conduct.
The way forward isn’t to accept that this illegal abuse of power is lawful; but to compel the President and Members of Congress to take the opposite position, and defend the principles they say some should be denied.
State Officials have duty to protect the Constitution. If this means making the President respond to illegal bills, and forcing him to assert rights and privileges he has denied to others, then that is an appropriate way. The President may not lawfully prohibit the public from discussing legislation which expressly targets the President. This President has illegally targets some people for abuse, while failing to demonstrate that he is willing to assent to that same standard of abuse. This President should be put on the defensive, and forced to publicly assert to standards, privileges, and Constitutional protections he has otherwise denied. Until this President is put on the defensive, he will continue to expand power and abuse his authority.
It is time for the States and Members of Congress to decide whether they are going to similarly abuse the President as this President says prisoners should be abused. If they pass legislation permitting the President to be abused like a dog, then perhaps the DoJ Staff and President may wish to rethink whether they are or are not serious about enforcing the illegal Military Commissions Bill.
It is up to the President and DoJ staff to decide whether they want to impose a lesser standard of care on prisoners than they would demand.
Lawfully targeting the DOJ Staff
The same approach can be taken with the DoJ Staff. They have consistently failed to assert their oath, and have assented to illegal abuse.
DoJ Staff are subject to State regulation under the attorney discipline system. Attorneys are afforded rights and privileges during their disbarment hearings. The States should independently be encouraged to deny to all DoJ Staff any and all privileges which have been denied to anyone else.
Right to Fair Hearing: The State Disciplinary Boards should be encouraged to deny to the DoJ Staff, during an ethics inquiry, the privileges of being subject to a fair hearing. The DOJ Staff has illegally permitted prisoners to be abused; the same abuse should lawfully be imposed on the DOJ Staff. The DOJ Staff will likely argue that the rules amount to a retroactive change to the Constitution, and deny them rights they are guaranteed. The public should be encouraged to see that the DOJ Staff has done the same with prisoners, and has illegally drafted a Military Commissions bill which retroactively creates new crimes despite there being no power to do so under the Constitution.
Right to Have Evidence: The DOJ Staff during a state disciplinary board should be denied the right to appeal evidence, or challenge all evidence related to their disbarment. The DOJ Staff will likely argue that this is not Constitutional. The public should be encouraged to see that the DOJ Staff has two standards on evidence – one for them, and one for everyone else. If the DOJ Staff says that it is “good enough” for some to be denied of all protections, then the State Disciplinary Boards should similarly ignore, violate, and not respect the same rights the DoJ Staff has not respected.
Enforcement of Laws Of Interest to the President
Currently it is illegal to advocate the violate overthrow of the US government, or advocate that the President be killed. However, it is legal to discuss changes to this statute; and also call for the lawful execution of the President at the hands of a war crimes tribunal which is duly appointed with the authority to adjudicate war crimes.
The issue before us is the double standard that the President has with respect to protections. The laws expressly define what is or is not lawful for anyone to advocate. Conversely, the states and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that makes it illegal for the President to call for the violent overthrow of another sate; or advocate using any ruse the illegal invasion of another country.
The DOJ Staff will likely argue that this is an infringement on the President’s power to invade any nation at will. The public should be encouraged to discuss this issue and recognize that the President has now lawful power to create rules permitting abuse; nor does the have the authority to wage illegal war, not matter what the President might suggest.
Going further, the States and Members of Congress should be encouraged to pass legislation that makes it lawful to discuss various things related to Presidential protection. For example, it is currently illegal to advocate the violent death of the President outside a war crimes tribunal adjudication. However, if the States and Members of Congress could pass a law making this advocate protected free speech, then we might have an interesting discussion.
The DOJ Staff and President are likely to argue that the legislation illegally induces others to commit acts of violence against the President. Despite nothing in the language that calls for the assassination of the President, the President’s argument fails: We’re not advocating the President be assassinated – only that the restrictions against discussing non-judicial penalties be permitted as protected speech.
Again, the DoJ Staff and President are likely to argue that such a rule would expose the President to undue risk. Again, the voters should be encouraged to ask: Why is the President asserting a right and privilege to compel lawful protections, but the public is expressly denied the same right to speak about the existing Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, abuse of power, or other rights to a fair trial and ability to challenge evidence.
The problem the Members of Congress and President have is that they have expressly permitted in the Military Commissions Bill the very things this President would never personally assent. It is time to make this President defend the very protections within the Constitution that he swore an oath to protect.
This President has to be lawfully changed, and forced to invoke the Constitution as his shield – then the public will see that this President relies on the Constitution to protect his personal rights, all the while that he and Members of Congress have ignored this Constitution and the Geneva Conventions when it comes to the treatment of others.
Again, we’re not advocating violence against the President. Rather, we’re advocating that the current restrictions against discussion various options be put on the same level as the Military Commissions Bill. If the President and Members of Congress say that it is “OK” to discuss bills that will permit the abuse of American Citizens; then it stands to reason they should be forced to explain to the public why nobody is allowed to discuss the same abuse that might be legally permitted under new rules against the President.
The American leadership at the sate and federal levels is in a moral and legal dilemma. They have two standards on the law. One for them, one for everyone else.
There is an inconsistency between:
The American leadership at the state and federal level cannot explain the two standards. Rather than assent to the double standard, the reasonable, principled state level leadership should be challenged to reciprocate. If they refuse to assert their oath and challenge this illegal action, then you should find new leaders who are willing to creatively ensure that your Constitution is protected.
The American leadership is unwilling to creatively use all their means to ensure that the American government protects the Constitution. This approach forces the American leadership into a no-win situation:
What You Can Do
Do your state legislators and Members of Congress have a reason that that they are not willing to pass legislation that will expressly target the President and deny him the same protections that others have been denied?
If you state legislatures and Members of Congress are not willing to similarly target the President with the same intrusions, and force him to assert rights in the Constitution, then your leadership has shown to all that it is not willing to make the President protect the Constitution or your rights.
Your leaders are not willing to make the President stand up for the Constitution. It is time to call the President on his bluff, and encourage all 50 state legislatures and assemblies to pass like terms and bills as has this Congress and President when they put into effect the illegal Military Commissions Bill.
If the President will not recognize the law as the basis for his power and authority; then his power need not be lawfully recognized.
Why is the President allowed to call for the abuse of prisoners, but the American public is not lawfully allowed to call for the same treatment of the President?
Why s the President being given the “power” to exercise Judicial authority, but he is not being forced to defend his “right” to have unchallenged power?
Why isn’t the President being forced to defend his right to a fair trial, yet he is being given the power to deny others the right to a fair trial?
Why are the DOJ Staff being given the chance to have a fair hearing, but they have denied prisoners the same rights?
Why is the President able to assert rights in court, but he denies to others to right to appear in court?
Why is the President asserting a right that he has not recognized for all?
Why does the State leadership silently assent to a double standard on the laws?
Does the State leadership have a plan to lawfully retaliate against the Federal Government, Members of Congress, President, and DoJ Staff for their defiance of the Constitution?
Why should we believe the American leadership – they have publicly affirmed an oath to the rule of law; but they refuse to apply that standard to all. Yet, when faced with the prospect of being denied protections, they cannot explain why they have denied these protections to others. How can this American leadership credibly refuse to protect the Constitution, but when faced with a legal challenge to their authority, they rely on a document they refuse to protect?
What is the plan of your state leadership to protect the Constitution; do they have a plan to put the President on the defensive; how will your state leadership act to ensure the President protects rights, and prevents the abuse of power?
What is stopping your state leadership from passing legislation that will deny to the President, Members of Congress, and DoJ Staff the same protections and rights they have denied others?
What is your state legislator’s plan to lawfully assert power and force the President, DoJ Staff, and Members of Congress to assert the very things they deny to others?
Why should others recognize rights which this President, Members of Congress, and DoJ have illegally denied to others?
Why are the President, DoJ Staff, and Members of Congress demanding Constitutional means to protect their power, but they refuse to rely on the Constitution to ensure another branch does not destroy that power?
If the President was not lawfully elected, but his appointment was illegal based on voter fraud, is there anything in the Constitution which requires someone who is not elected as President to be immune to having their Compensation reduced to zero while they are in office?
The aim of this discussion is not to advocate illegal activity. The point is to consider to what extent your state and federal officials are or are not willing to make the President protect the Constitution.
This Congress and your state officials cannot be trusted to use any and all means to protect the Constitution. If they were serious about the rule of law, they would pass like legislation that would specifically target the President and deny him protections, rights, and powers that he has otherwise not respected in others.
We the People reserve the right at any time to force the President to respond and protect the Constitution using any lawful means. When the President and DOJ Staff illegally deny to some the rights to warrants, fair trials and the ability to challenge evidence, then We the People may lawfully work with the States to similarly target the DOJ Staff and deny them the same protections when it comes to issues of disbarment.
If the American legal community is not willing to assert the rule of law, and ensure the Geneva Conventions are recognized as the Supreme Law, then the American legal community and individual attorneys should lawfully be denied the right to similar protections. There is no basis for any DOJ Staff counsel to argue that there should be two standards on whether evidence is or is not admissible; or whether some are or are not subject to the rule of law. If the DOJ Staff denies to anyone the right to a fair trial, then the DOJ Staff should be lawfully forced to assent to the same standards during their disbarment. Whether they are or are not reasonably disbarred is irrelevant; this DOJ Staff has illegally permitted innocent civilians to be subject to abusive legal process. The states and Members of Congress should be forced to explain why the DOJ Staff, when faced with a potential disbarment proceeding, should not be subject to the same abusive judicial process this DOJ Staff has said is permissible to anyone on the basis of accusation.
This DOJ Staff has permitted people to be denied of their rights to a fair trial; the same lesser standard of abuse should be enacted into law at the state level. Any state legislator who refuses to discuss the inconsistency, or says that the issue cannot be discussed, will have to explain why the DoJ Staff, Members of Congress and President have discussed the same issues: Denial of rights.
The simple answer is that your elected state officials are not willing to assert their oath. If the President and DoJ Staff working with Members of Congress are willing to assert that the Constitution does not exist or will not be enforced, then it is time the States and American public force the Members of Congress, DoJ Staff, and President to publicly assert the very things that they say should not be recognized.
Using State level discussion and legislation lawfully target the DoJ Staff, Members of Congress, and President. Force the Members of Congress, DoJ Staff, and President to assert before a court the very things that they say should be denied to all Americans:
Each of these principles is something that this Federal Government has refused to assent. The laws, pattern of conduct, and method they interact with others shows this Federal Government defies their oath, cannot be trusted, and should lawfully be prosecuted for war crimes.
State citizens should discuss with their friends the lawful ways to compel the Federal Government officials to invoke the very things that they say others can be denied.
The people working in the Federal Government are not gods. They are lazy, arrogant, and have two standards on the rule of law. Force them to show the world that they want to rely on something which they will not let others rely.
Until this President is lawfully threatened with the loss of liberty, wealth, power, and privilege, he will not stop. This President, the DoJ Staff, and Members of Congress should lawfully be the target for like legislation that will deny them of the same privileges, immunities, and rights which they have denied others.
They have no credibility in arguing that they are entitled to protections, but others can be stripped of the same protections, powers, rights, and privileges.
Anything in the Military Commission Bill can be lawfully discussed as a similar standard which can be applied to the DOJ Staff during their disbarment proceedings.
The goal of this program is to inspire the President, Members of Congress, and DOJ Staff to protect the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and Rule of Law for all.
There is a way to engorge the President to Commit to Protecting The Constitution. This program requires the President, Members of Congress, and DoJ Staff to respond to questions about their inconsistent approach to the following issues:
This program is a method to help voters see that their Members of Congress and State legislators have two standards on whether they will or will not enforce the Constitution, or assert their oath of office. They are willing to silently assent to abuse; but they are not willing to put into effect a simple program to lawfully reciprocate against those who are abusing powers.
The failure of the American leadership at the Federal and State level is evidence of their defiance of their oath of office.
This program compels the President to scream for his rights.
This program invokes a single principle of Constitutional reciprocity. When the President denies rights or illegally asserts power, that action must lawfully be invoked against him. If he says that prisoners can be abused, the President should be forced to assent to the same conditions as a prisoner. If the conditions are not adequate for the accused, non-charged DoJ Staff, then the conditions should not be imposed on anyone.
If the President, Members of Congress, and DoJ Staff refuse to enforce the law for some, the Federal officials have no credible authority to prevent like abuses from being imposed on them or their family. If the DOJ Staff say that civilians, however removed from the battlefield, may be detained indefinitely, then so too may DoJ Staff counsel be similarly detained on basis of accusation alone, when awaiting the final result of the State Disciplinary Board. If the DOJ Staff stays that civilians, however removed from the battlefield, may be detained on the basis of accusation alone and never granted the right to challenge this detention, then the DOJ Staff counsel’s family members may similarly jailed on the basis of State Assembly edict.
The President has no power to retaliate against those who force the President to do his job. If the President retaliates against anyone for lawfully passing legislation that invokes the same standards of abuse and mistreatment which this Congress and President have agreed, then the President is lawfully subject to additional state-level legislation which can similarly be arbitrarily enforced.
The President’s efforts to retaliate against anyone for passing this legislation is evidence that the President understands there are Constitutional requirements. The President may not credibly claim that he was confused about Geneva or the US Constitution when he takes specific action to retaliate against others for enforcing those standards; or lawfully depriving him of rights he is other wise protected. The only way the President can organize a plan to retaliate against others for denying him of rights is if he comprehends that his rights – as outlined in the Supreme Law – have or have not been denied. This means that the President and DOJ Staff have no basis to argue before a war crimes tribunal that they misunderstood the law, did not understand Geneva, or failed to comprehend the requirements. Either they knew the law and failed to enforce it; or they were reckless in failing to preserve the Supreme law.
When the President asserts his power and rights to oppose the above state action, this is evidence of his initial failure to protect the Supreme Law.
A. Challenge the President. Your job is to:
1. Review the list of Presidential powers in the Constitution;
2. Draft legislation that will ignore, revoke, and not recognize any Presidential powers, rights, and privileges in the Constitution.
3. Force the President, Members of Congress and DoJ Staff to assert the language of the Constitution to defeat the bill
4. Use the DoJ Staff counsel argument about the language as a basis to discredit the President’s argument related to the Military Commission Bill
Example: Draft legislation that no longer recognizes the President as Commander in Chief. He and the DOJ Staff will invoke legal arguments, relying on the Constitution that he ignores, in an effort to assert his power.
Your job is not to argue for or against the bill, but to show that the President is taking two different positions on the law: One for him, and one for everyone else. He invokes the law to protect his personal rights; but he denies the law when he wants to abuse others.
B. Challenge Members of Congress. Your job:
1. Review the Member of Congress duties and obligations;
2. Create state-level statutes that criminalize misconduct by Members of Congress;
3. Work to prosecute Member of Congress for felonies at the State Level;
4. Lower the threshold for felonies against Members of Congress;
5. Make Members of Congress argue that the law is being unfairly applied;
6. Encourage your state officials to conclude that Members of Congress, when they ignore the Constitution, may have the standards of reasonableness ignored;
7. Force the Member of Congress to respond to multiple charges of alleged felonies, reminding them they are accountable to the State, not the President;
8. Remind Members of Congress that the States may continue to lower the bar on what constitutes a felony against Members of Congress so long as they continue to ignore the Supreme Law; and they can be forced to respond to state-level legal requirements, however burdensome they may be.
9. In effect, remind you Members of Congress that, as they did with the Military Commissions Bill, you may lawfully create bills which retroactively criminalize conduct which was lawful; and retroactively lower the threshold upon which they are arrested for felonies. This in effect permits the states to engage in retroactive recalls of Members of Congress, and trumps the Congress in deciding when to expel a Member. Members of Congress cannot serve when they are in jail for violating newly enacted State-level statutes lowering the threshold on felonies for Members of Congress.
10. Once the Member of Congress opposes the State legislation, use their legal arguments presented in the open media as evidence of their knowledge of what the laws are; and that they knew, or should have known, that they had a duty to Enforce Geneva. Use their public opposition to the State level statutes as evidence to present to the war crimes prosecutor of what they knew or should have known was or was not lawful.
C. Start a discussion group to apply lessons of Foley.
Recall what Foley did: he supported a bill that would criminalize certain behavior, and then got caught violating the same standards. There are options to lawfully retaliate against the President has signed the bill authorizing illegal activity.
What can lawfully be done to permit the President to feel the full consequences of the bill he signed?
- Draft state-level statutes that would criminalize Presidential conduct, permitting the States to Prosecute the president for criminal activity. Ref
D. Call your radio hosts, friends, and enemies in the RNC
Here's a sample: Start with a discussion of the President's approval of illegal abuse. State the following:
1. "I'm not seeing much discussion on solutions, or what might be done in response to the President's illegal activity-signing."
2. "If someone had a solution to this situation -- what to lawfully do to the President by way of lawful retaliation -- would you want to hear it? Or would you rather believe that there is no hope?"
Then monitor the reaction. Are people more interested in whining; or are they interested in discussing what could be done? Avoid trying to impose a solution; merely consider whether people are open to the idea of there being a solution.
Ask them: Why do they value the idea of believing that there is no hope; no solution; and that nothing can be done? Do they have a benefit to giving up, and believing there is no solution or option; or do they just enjoy encouraging those around them to grovel like dogs because they have not considered they could easily soar like an Eagle?
Remind people: They can choose their attitude: Your Choice: Hope of Defeat. If they want to be pathetic and whine, "Oh, my we're in a dictatorship, then you're not talking to someone who has a clue about the power of We the People or the States to lawfully undermine this illegal abuse of power.
If you're talking to someone that is whining that nothing can be done, you're talking to a stupid person. Yell at them: "You're stupid, pathetic, and not a leader. Even a stupid blog has more hope than you."
When they yell back, congratulate them. See: "They can stand up for themselves. The key is to focus on what they can control, not on the illusion of powerlessness." remind them to choose a solution, not defeat. There is a lawful way.
If they were truly as pathetic, helpless, and defeatist that they want you to be, then they would not dare to stand up for themselves. They would roll over and gladly accept all reminders that they are hopeless. The fact that they have dared to lash out is evidence that they have not given up, despite the stupid comments that they say there is no hope.
There is hope. It's in you. Your job is to lawfully remove from the political stages the buffoons in your state and federal government who have given up hope, and believe that violating the law is the only option. There are lawful options to prevail. Those who want you to give up hope are not leaders. Share with your friends that you know there is always hope. Your job is to listen to those who have ideas, and ignore those who are whining, feeling sorry for themselves, or saying nothing can be done or "it's a waste of time."
They're a waste of time, but that doesn't mean you should back off from your demand that they do their jobs; do what they say; not lie; and follow the law. Their only option is to yell because they do not like to be reminded that they are not doing their job; or that they are making excuses to not do what they get paid to do: Enforce the law, protect the Constitution, and do everything within their power to refuse to assent to this tyranny from the oval office clerk.
Tyrants are like monkeys: They appear to be one thing, but they are not all powerful. They always have a flaw, and the public can see their flaw and signs of their powerlessness. Consider the President's appeal to the talk radio hosts. Forget that fact that some in the RNC talk show-circuit assent to tyranny and nonsense. Simply focus on what we have: A president, who is "all powerful" has to "appeal" to those in his own party to listen to him.
Then contrast that with the RNC voting block in Congress: The RNC consistently votes as a group. How does the President explain his "appeal to the radio hosts" but his silence to those who make the decisions? The answer: What Congress does or does not do is meaningless unless We the People are willing to back the President up.
The very fact that we are considering lawful options to compel the President to account for this illegal military commissions bill is evidence that the President is not all powerful to end debate, or lawfully hold him to account for these war crimes.
The President has no hope of victory so long as he is losing, and realizes that he must appeal to those who, arguably, have no real power -- talk show hosts. The hosts are wavering in their support because the President's position is not sound and is not supportable as a single policy. There are other options besides what the President is offering, and We the People and the radio show hosts are (gradually) realizing there is another way.
We don't need new leaders with new ideas. We need new leaders. Then the new ideas and solutions will arrive. It is a false chose to compel the existing incompetent leadership to offer an alternative when they are incapable of visualizing something other than their hopelessness.
Remind your readers and audience: If they do not find the hope within them to solve this problem, they will be given more abuse to see that they have no hope but to rely on their strength and internal wisdom to find a solution.
Your audience must decide whether they have had enough, or want more abuse. If they are hopeless, then they will stay home or vote for the RNC. If they have hope that things will change, they will stay home, continue their work, and remind everyone else there is a solution.
I cannot make you have hope. But I can let you suffer more as you believe there is no hope. One day you will awaken, and realize there is a solution. I will not make you. I will only let you suffer until you are willing to stand up for yourself, realize there is hope, and there is a solution.
Until then, enjoy your suffering. I will support all efforts to offer hope only when you say you are willing to listen and believe in yourself. Until then, you communicate that you are not willing to listen, would prefer to be hapless, and are not interested in solutions. Then so be it, you have chosen to be defeated.
You have already lost, and I have won. Until you admit that, do not bother me with your hopelessness; and do not bother to point to what may or may not be someone else's words. Their words are hypocritical -- asking for hopelessness today, yet their old writings plead for hope. Either they were lying then and we cannot believe their calls for hope today; or they are lying today, only using the claim of "hope" as a basis to mislead and abuse you.
Notice their words from long ago. Why should we believe them today; or do they have an explanation why their abusive words from long ago are suddenly irrelevant; but they point to quotes and words of others as if it were gospel. Are people incapable of changing? Indeed, people are capable of committing to absurdity and abuse if that is what they believe they deserve. They will change when they want to, or believe they have no other option.
You must decide whether (a) you are willing to be treated with respect, demand the President refrain from his abuse, and compel him to lawfully suffer the same consequences as that which he imposes on others; or (b) continue to embrace the absurd non-sense that there is no solution. Indeed, you have no solution, you are not a leader, but are pathetic.
The President is a war criminal. He has defied the Geneva Conventions. The States have the legal power and authority to prosecute him. One way to force the President into the open is to pass legislation that will lawfully reciprocate against the President.
When the President and DOJ Staff assert legal arguments that the bill, language, or other statues are not enforceable or lawful, the way forward is to use their legal arguments as a means to defeat their illegal acts, and unlawful abuse power.
Force the President into the open. Compel the DOJ Staff to remain on the defensive. Require the US government officials to assent to the rule of law. If they do not like the rule of law, then they belong in jail.
Here is what the States can do -- any of the fifty (50) -- to lawfully prosecute a sitting President for signing into law an illegal Military Commissions Bill, and his other illegal action: Read this. Share with your friends. [ Discuss here and contact Prof. John Turley at Georgetown if you want more info: Contact info ]
They wished this.