Americans United To Protect the Constitution

Across all spectrums, there's little separating Americans' goals and aspirations from their political opponents. Americans generally want the same thing: A stable society, and a credible, reasonable system.

The American government has failed. There are options. There is nothing blocking Americans from joining forces to protect the US Constitution. The American government is not serious about its oath of office.

What You Can Do:

(1) State Proclamations

Tell Your Friends about House Rule 603 -- Powerful state proclamations force the US House of Representatives to stop all business and focus on the President's illegal activity.

(2) E-mail Alert

Since the US government is too lazy to review the alleged war crimes, the Germans are being asked to conduct oversight. Send this e-mail alert to elected officials in the US: "Why can't American leaders conduct reviews of the President?"

* * *

We the People have options. There is something all Americans can do: Reach out to non-voters and others in the opposing party, and lawfully uniting against the abuse of power by the US Government.

This note outlines a Public Oversight Plan over Congress related to a March 2007 mandatory Congressional Committee Report on legal compliance. The public is encouraged to review these legal requirements, and aggressively target Members of Congress to explain Presidential compliance or non compliance within their areas of jurisdiction.

The US Constitution does not prevent the public, voters and non-voters like, from creating an informal alliance to protect the Constitution from the US government’s rebellion.

Americans have more in common with each other that they do with the ineffectual American government. There is little barring the American public from reaching out to members of the opposing party, and jointly agreeing they have a larger, common foe: The US Government.

American citizens have been betrayed by poor, ineffectual leadership in both parties of the Article I and Article II branches of government. The DNC refusal to consider impeachment is flawed, and betrays the American public. Similarly, the RNC membership has been also been betrayed by poor leadership in the White House and Congress.

Just as the American government has failed to adequately plan for Katrina and the Iraqi insurgency, they show little inclination or competence to adequately manage a joint DNC-GOP rebuke of the failed, unresponsive system.

The same government which asks for bipartisanship and alliances at the top cannot credibly argue that We the People could not similarly reach out, in a non-partisan manner to our citizen-peers.

Only 40% of the eligible voters voted. Considering that the DNC may have one by just over 50% of the vote, the actual support for the DNC and RNC is about 20% for each party. This means that there is about 80% of the country is opposed or not supporting any given party. Quite a problem for the DNC-GOP leadership.

* * *

The way forward is to prepare for the 2008 election, develop a credible third party, and immediately work with the State legislatures of Vermont, Illinois, and California to discuss the privileged state proclamations calling for impeachment investigations.

Other state legislators are independent, and not beholden to either party. The state Attorney generals also have the power to investigate and prosecute a sitting President. There is also nothing stopping the American public from continuing to provide evidence to war crimes prosecutors in Europe. The US government does not get a free pass to resolve the issues.

* * *

The House Judiciary Committee, like all other Congressional committees, will have to file a report at the end of March 2007. The report is a requirement under the US Code. The report requires the Committees to report on their effectiveness in enforcing the law, engaging in oversight, and discussing issues.

They have to report in writing their ongoing plans and effectivness in investigating a President engaged in illegal warfare, and unlawful occupations. Failure of the committee staff to review, investigate, or prevent war crimes may be considered evendence of war crimes.

The way forward is between now, November 2006 and March 2007, to remind the current and future House leadership that they have a known reporting requirement; and will have to explain their stand on Presidential misconduct and violations of the law. Regardless whether the do or do not impeach, the public should make clear to the Committee Chairman that We the People expect a complete report, with full discussions on the statute of Committee investigations into Presidential crimes, misconduct, and other required reporting items.

The status of the report is irrelevant. Both the RNC and DNC leadership will have between November and March ample opportunity to work with local contractors, solicit inputs for a known reporting requirement, and refine the product to meet the statutory requirements. Whether the Congress does or does not change the reporting requirement is meaningless. There is only one issue: Whether the Committees do or do not meet their statutory reporting obligations and fully discuss the status of oversight on Presidential crimes; or whether they make excuses.

Elections are known legal events in our Constitutional Republic. They are not surprises. They are interwoven into the fabric of the Constitution, and statutory requirements must be fulfilled. Had Congress not wanted this reporting requirement, it could have changed the report, or otherwise adjusted the deadline. The deadline of March 2007 remains.

* * *

Questions For Committee Staff

Here are some sample questions you and your friends can send to Congress, and remind the Committee Staff, and their contractors, that they need to Comment in their Mar 2007 reports, as required by statute.

This Congress shall explain in the reports their progress in fulfilling their 5 USC 3331 oath of office:

___ Why are the committees not doing their moral best to fully assert their oath, and conducting a full inquiry into the Presidential crimes?

___ Does the Committee have an explanation why, despite this known statutory requirement, they have no credible plan to fully discuss the failure to plan for a known Presidential oversight requirement

___ What is the reason that the Committees have not adequately planned for a specific oversight or review, and document this oversight in the required March 2007 report?

___The legal requirement to provide this report in odd-numbered years is linked with the election, remains a known requirement, and is a known reporting requirement regardless the outcome of the election. Why should anyone believe that the “Excuse of the election” has any merit?

___ Does the Committee have an explanation why the Title 28 exception reports were not filed, as required?

___ How can the committee review the effectiveness of law enforcement measures if they are not willing to review the Chief Law enforcement officer: The President?

___ How do the Committees explain the lack of Title 50 Presidential reporting, but no effort to lawfully prosecute the President for failing to comply with Title 50?

___ What is the reason, despite the legal option to hire contractors, that the various committees are not able to fully comment on the ability of the President to fully enforce the laws?

___ Is there a reason that the standing committees refuse to comment on whether the laws are or are not being uniformly enforced by the President?

___ What is the basis for appropriations if there is no fact finding on Presidential violations of the law? Ref

___ Without reviewing the illegal actions of the President, how do the Committees justify confidence that the expenditures are or are not in compliance with Article 1 Section 9, requiring all expenditures be related for lawful purposes?

___ Which Congressional staffer awards are being denied because they raise questions related to Presidential illegal conduct? Ref

___ Why should We the People have confidence in the complaints to the various committees? Ref

___ Does the Committee have an explanation for the list of things that it will not review related to Presidential violations of the law: Ref

___ When considering Congressional regulations, how does the Committee justify using executive regulations when those regulations are not fully followed, and there has been inadequate review whether the Executive can or should enforce those replacement regulations for Congress? Ref

___ Failing to review the President raises questions about whether Members of Congress have or have not been negligent in their duties. Please discuss the basis for We the People to have confidence that your committee is appropriately reviewing, and reporting in the March 2007 report, the appropriate patterns of misconduct; or if the investigations are not adequate, whether the House Ethics committee is or is not adequately reviewing the alleged malfeasance by Members of Congress. Ref

___ By refusing to review Presidential violations of the law, please discuss what tasks, legal duties, and other statutes your committee staff counsel are not reviewing, and otherwise failing to do as otherwise required by statute or under their professional standards of conduct. How has the alleged malfeasance, investigation blocks, or other alleged refusal to consider your staff counsel concerns been factored into whether your staff counsel is or is not in full compliance with their state attorney discipline standards. Ref

___ Which abuses by the President is the Committee ignoring; but which abuses by your Staff counsel or members is your committee reviewing. Does the Staff counsel and Committee staff understand that there is a disparity between Presidential investigations, and investigations of committee staff conduct? How has this discrepancy been factored into hiring plans, retention opportunities, and staff turnover. How has this information been factored into Statement on Accounting Standard 99 review of internal controls and fraud indictors, under Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards? Ref

___ By refusing to review certain Presidential violations of the law, how has this refusal been factored into the "neglect of duty" determination? Ref

___ What is the reason that the oath of office, when not fully enforced, should be considered meaningful to evaluate Member of Congress allegiance or commitment to do their jobs? Ref

___ Once the President is removed from the investigation list, how does this impact your committees ability to get witnesses to cooperate; or affect your committees list of "refusal to appear" problems? Ref

___ Which rules has your committee chosen to ignore, not enforce? Ref

___ Why should anyone believe your committee, by refusing to investigate the President, remains credible to do what it has the obligation to do: Protect the Constitution? Ref

Additional questions: Feel free to post the responses on the Judiciary Website so We the People may cross reference them with documents from DoJ, FOIAs, and other information which Congress may be too lazy to review, "Because we don't have enough time or interest to bother to assert our oath, or ask the President any challenging questions." Americans for Increased Congressional Oversight with a New Constution.

* * *

Members of Congress, when they defy their oath, will have to request support, especially when their actions are not supportable. By defying their oath, their words and promises are meaningless. As long as they refuse to support the Constitution, there is no reason any American should support any of the American leaders.

Americans are not required to choose between one party and another. The choice is for the American government to make: Between the Constitution or their illegal rebellion against the same. By choosing to defy their oath, they side with the excuse of rebellion. The Constitution shall prevail, and they have poorly chosen defeat.

This leadership erred in rallying a nation for a cause that was below their duty: For something other than the Constitution. It was foolish for them to expect the American public to remain loyal to leaders who are not loyal to the law. We can find new leaders, ones who put their oath into effect, not into the trash.

It is possible to openly discuss the options, and formulate a common plan. Despite the lesson of Iraq where open debates prove useful for sharing options, this US government has secretly agreed to do nothing.

* * *

Changes means changing. Talking about changing, but sticking with flawed oversight is not change, but the same contempt for accountability. The American Government has a choice: Between this Constitution, and one that will revoke their discretion to choose.

The American people have seen the wretchedness of the American government in Iraq. The excuses all Americans have been given from the leaders in both parties are frivolous. The burden of proof and the basis for any American to maintain confidence in the American leadership is a burden on the leadership, not a requirement of the citizenry.

Letters thanking voters for their support during the election are meaningless when they are not connected with action. The American leadership has no appreciation for their oath. The 2006 election result is a mandate to hold the leadership in both parties to account. Refusing to stay connected with the Constitution, the leadership cannot show they are serious about protecting the document. Their choice of inaction speaks volumes.

Americans have no obligation to remain loyal to a government or its individual leaders when they defy their oath. The same citizens who have been inspired to support the least worst are not beholden to what fails. There is no reason for any American to fear other citizens or their issues; we have a larger common problem – the fear this government has of the American people, their oath, and real accountability.

The sword of the Constitution remains unsheathed to the political throats of the American leadership. The American leaders have proven incompetent to outmaneuver poorly organized foreign fighters; there is no prospect they can prevail over marginally motivated Americans.

* * *

This failed leadership has rallied the nation on the basis of law or defiance of the law; they jointly fail to comprehend that We the People may jointly rally to enforce the law against them.

Every excuse the American leadership gives for inaction can be thrown back at them: Another credible excuse for We the People to ignore their claims of a mandate or power. Folly and false leadership have illegally replaced their oath and accountability.

The false claim of insufficient time to investigate is meaningless. They have no option. Despite inaction in 2006, they claim they will be worthy of trust. They do not need more time. They need more oversight by We the People.

The leaders incorrectly believe if they offer others power or funds, that the leadership will not be held to account for violations of their oath. It is irrelevant whether Americans do or do not have an interest in money, power or wealth. The only relevant standard of success is whether the leaders is interested in the rule of law.

There is no lawful compromise in the rule of law or the oath. American leadership defies the Constitution. No American has any enforceable agreement with any leader to remain silent about abuse of power in any branch of government.

* * *

American citizens regardless their political loyalties have a common problem. There is a common plan in the Constitution. This leadership refuses to do what is written. They would rather spend time pretending a new plan might be preferable.

All Americans should reach out to their political opponents, at the lowest levels of government, and at the highest levels of civilian life. We have one common bond: Our Constitution. The leadership defies this common thread.

The American leaders have reached across the aisle to jointly agree to not do what they should. American citizens can reach across the aisle to jointly agree to compel the leaders to do what they must.

Americans cannot be compelled to squabble on petit trifles when there is a larger, looming problem in the US government. The leadership cannot focus on a single person, or hold them accountable for misconduct. There is no prospect, even if granted more power, that they’ll do what they refuse to do: Assert their oath.

Americans can jointly ask a common question: What should We the People do to protect this Constitution from this failed American government. The answer is: There are many options, including the state proclamations calling for impeachment; state attorney generals starting prosecution; and working with the war crimes prosecutors.

* * *

Little separates Americans. Much separates the leadership from the Constitution. Americans have been betrayed by those who had power and abused it; and those who claim power, but refuse to assert it. Democrats have been betrayed by unwilling leadership; Republicans have been betrayed by failed leadership. The results are the same: The Constitution is not protected.

There is no need to focus on our difference in policy issues. We can stand for a clear plan: The Constitution. All Americans, regardless your profession, occupation, economic income, artistic endeavors, social status, economic wealth, or inclination have a common foe: The US government.

The American leaders have refused to respect the number one agenda. There is no need to speculate over who may or may not be the better leader in 2008. Today, in 2006, we have no leadership in the American government to assert the rule of law against one man.

Americans may lawfully unite, cross political parties, and jointly compel a US government to protect the Constitution. Power is a meaningless excuse to ignore the law; the law has supreme power over those who offer no leadership, but excuses to defy their oath.

Whether the leadership resigns, cooperates, or is lawfully defeated on the political stage is not relevant; but whether Americans realize that the American leadership has exhausted reasonable patience, and not done what it should: Lead.

No leader can wrap themselves in a document they refuse to touch. Our common agenda is the Constitution. The US government cannot prevent the states from enforcing the law. There is no legal basis to compromise on the Constitution.

All Americans may lawfully refuse to cooperate with what is an illegal rebellion against the US Constitution. It is not lawful for anyone to threaten you if you refuse to recognize the power of those who defy their oath. Without our agreement, they have no power; without our consent, they have no authority.

* * *

What You Can Do

Reach across the aisle to others in the opposing parties, and the non-voters. Encourage them to get involved with the effort to protect the Constitution.

Compel the US government to impeach, or wish they had.

Remind your friends of the state proclamations in Illinois, Vermont, and California which will trump all other House business. [ Details ]

Gather evidence of war crimes; work with the war crimes prosecutors to lawfully prosecute American government officials who refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions; or investigate or prevent war crimes. [ Address for Prosecutor ]