Constant's pations

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

Saturday, November 25, 2006

American Government Abdicates Legitimacy

Ref: Illegitimate US Government Still Not Sure If It Likes The Rule of Law

* * *

It's one thing to have a hearing, quite another to do something.

The first crime was to violate the law. The second was to fail to enforce the law. Congress is complicit with illegal activity, arguably because there are other violations which Congress doesn't want the public to know about. So much for oversight and new Committee Chairmen.

Where there were legal problems, those should be prosecuted; if there are not prosecutions, don’t expect We the People to have confidence in the US Government's interest in the rule of law, much less their oath.

Where there are rules, but they are not enforced, the States are deprived of a Constitutionally protected right to a republican form of government: One that includes an enforcement mechanism.

* * *


As you review the alleged malfeasance by specific Members of Congress, consider the stunning revelations of Hastert in re Foley; and contrast them with the comments of Pelosi. Ref

Skim the following, and you'll see other questions related to Pelosi at the end of this content; plus additional information here, especially Part II Q&A.

Pelosi as majority leader should have been told things; when she learned she didn't know, it doesn't appear as though she timely acted to document, report those concerns to the IG/US Attorney, or timely call for alternative reports to be drafted. This is alleged malfeasance, and even if she is the minority leader, she still has a duty to document her concerns to the IGs and US Attorneys.

* * *

Inaction on FISA-NSA violations means it's another excuse, as these charts depict, to argue for less oversight, nor more.

The absurdity is to suggest that if Congress enforces the law then Congress will deprive the President of a tool to wage war. if that war is illegal, and the tools have been used to commit war crimes, there's nothing wrong with typing his hands, especially when he doesn't feel constrained by the law, his oath, or Constitution.

It's senseless to talk about "change" when the decision remains the same: Inaction, not accountability, and no mechanism to prevent its recurrence. The Attorney General had specific Title 28 reporting requirements to Congress. He ignored those.

Unless Congress is self-delegating itself power of Pardon, which it cannot do, Congress has no power to immunize people for illegal activity, especially when that criminal activity is the subject of ongoing litigation.

Whether the White House does or doesn't agree to legislation in November 2006 is meaningless. This Congress in November 2006 has the power to shut down illegal funding for unlawful things. It has refused and this is further evidence, as was the illegal military commotions bill, of their refusal to assert their oath.

Claiming there is "bipartisan interest" in anything is meaningless. If "bipartisanship" were serious, the DNC and GOP leadership in November 2006 would work to shut down funding for what is not lawful; and jointly agree to investigations in November 2006 so that the issues do not overlap with the still unfinished budget decisions.

* * *

Arguing about whether the Congress should or shouldn't enforce the law is absurd as the US debate on whether we should or should not torture. The conduct is illegal.

The inaction isn't simply raising questions about oversight, but the interest US government officials in all branches and parties to assert their oath. What the Republicans may have not been able to do is not an excuse for them to argue, if they have more power, they'll do. Rather, they had the power, and didn't do it. Giving them more power is absurd.

No clarity is needed. The law is clear. The problem is the convoluted DoJ Staff counsel who are alleged complicity with illegal activity, Conational violations, war crimes; and the Congressional Staff and Members of Congress who refuse to enforce the law.

When Congress refuses to enforce the law, We the People should work with the US Attorney, War crimes prosecutors, and State Attorney Generals to lawfully target the Members of Congress who refused to do what they should.

The Attorney General's words are meaningless. Gonzalez is an alleged perjurer, has been indicted for war crimes, and remains subject of a war crimes investigation. The same intrusions could be lawfully directed at him, depriving him of the ability to discuss his legal defense with his defense counsel.

The President has no "inherent" power to violate the Constitution during times of undeclared or declared war. If the US government wants to ignore the Constitution, we can create a New Constitution that will remove their discretion to ignore the Supreme law.

"National security" is meaningless. The only interest this government has is in insulating itself from accountability, not protecting the Constitution. If the "interest" was truly "national" there would be Congressional bills in the House to eliminate the illegal activity.

* * *

The easy fix is for the House to shut down appropriations for what is illegal. Until We the People see a bill that modifies the illegal activity, the Congress is complicit with the illegal Article 1 Section 9 violations.

It's not difficult to shut down money for what is illegal. Failing to stop illegal activity is a war crime, regardless the difficult the Members of Congress have in comprehending their legal responsibility.

* * *

This Constitution, or a New One

We the People already have a resolution on what is important: It's called the US Constitution. This government fails to enforce it, protect, or recognize its' validity, pretending it is debatable.

The US Constitution is not a requirement on We the People to permit its destruction. Either it is enforced, or we find new leaders who are responsive to a New Constitution that reminds them of their duties, and our inherent right to lawfully replace that which refuses to protect the Constitution.

We can create a New Constitution which deprive Members of Congress the legal right or power to debate what is in the Constitution: You cannot debate what is a protected right -- the right to have the law enforced. Without enforcement of the law, there is no republican form of government; and no reason anyone in Iraq should believe the US is serious about democracy.

* * *

Congressional Leadership Problem in Both Parties

Pelosi suggests she doesn't understand how it operated. She'll have to explain why, despite the notification requirements of the Executive to her as Minority leader, she can't point to anything suggesting that she forwarded her concerns to the US Attorney; or called for the IGs to review the issues. It's been more than one year, where's the memoranda, Madame Speaker?

Pelosi will have to explain, why despite the disclosures of illegal activity, she did not timely call for more than briefings, and did not swiftly move to bring the US Attorney and Inspector Generals into the nexus to identify who was violating the law. She had that power as majority leader; giving her more power isn't going to address what she allegedly failed to do as majority leader.

___ What is Pelosi's reasons for waiting so long to get a briefing on an illegal matter?

No excuse.

___ Was there something that prevented Pelosi from exercising her power as majority leader to publicly discuss the requirement to shut down illegal appropriations?

Powers not used cannot credibly be argued they'll be used later.

___ Without a joint GOP-DNC decision to agree to investigations in November 2006, what is going to prevent the budgets from getting passed before fact finding?

Nothing. They'll use the inaction as an excuse to rush hearings, rubber stamp appropriations for illegal activity, and not hold their peers accountable for misconduct.

___ Does the US government have a credible case to be made that it has enforced the law, or provided to the States an enforcement mechanism, as required under a republican form of government?

A government which does not enforce the law is not legitimate and should be lawfully replaced with a new system that removes discretion. The US government officials cannot credibly claim they are worthy of trust, confidence, or respect. They defy their oath, create excuse for inaction, and are unfit for leadership.

Part II: More questions and answers on how this Congress plans to assent to illegal activity, not enforce the law, defy its oath, and fail to Protect the US Constitution.