Disrupted Congressional Committee Assignments: War Crimes Evidence
Lieberman’s pendulous party affiliation is of interest to war crimes prosecutors.
One of the flaws with the Congressional Committee Chairmanship positions is the speed to which a stable Legislative Committee Leadership can be disrupted. If the Senate is effectively tied, 50-50, or 49-51, the change of one party affiliation can disrupt the Committee Chairmanship assignments.
An adverse impact of having one party control the Committee Chairmanships is effective oversight can go out the window. At worst, Geneva Convention violations and war crimes investigations are illegally thwarted, prompting foreign fighters to initiate a humanitarian intervention.
A solution would be to assign the Committee Chairmanships on the basis of time, not party: If one party controls 50% of the seats in a Chamber, then that Party would control the Committee Chairmanship for 50% of the time.
One approach to effectively highlighting the problem with an unstable Committee Assignment system is to induce the Republican Party members in the Senate to leave the Republican Party.
It should be the national policy of We the People to encourage the GOP senators who have lost their seats to work with their former colleagues, encourage them to leave to GOP.
Those Senators who leave the GOP could be rewarded with a Committee Chairmanship. Whether they join the DNC or remain independent is a secondary issue.
The approach outlined above will illustrate to both parties the inherent instability of Committee Chairmanship. Bluntly, if one senator in a given party threatens to leave the party, they could disrupt the Chairmanship assignments. There is nothing wrong with a Senator leaving a party.
The problem is when a particular candidate on any given day is unable to decide whether they are an Independent, Republican, or Democrat.
If the Republicans would like to have anyone believe they are for bipartisanship, then they should not oppose incentives being provided to the GOP Senators, or inducements for them to leave the GOP.
Whether the GOP leadership in the Senate can or cannot maintain control of their party affiliations is a secondary matter.
It remains to be seen, once the German war crimes prosecutor targets US government officials, how many of the GOP Senators are implicated in the alleged failures to prevent, investigate, and stop war crimes.
Once GOP Senators absorb the gravity of the war crimes conduct, it remains to be seen how many GOP Senators look for any pretext to leave the Republican Party. They may not need anything from the DNC leadership to cast aside any affiliation with the Republicans.
Indeed, those who jump ship first have a higher chance of negotiating a favorable deal with the DNC leadership, or possibly secure a valuable DNC Chairmanship.
Conversely, even if the were to retake control of the Senate, the GOP leadership does not have the power to grant all Republicans a Chairmanship. Rather, there will be some GOP Senators who have no prospect of getting any chairmanship, unless they leave the Republican Party.
Senator Lieberman needs to decide whether he wants to remain affiliated with the DNC, form his own Independent Caucus, or switch his party designation to the GOP.
Lieberman appears to be disingenuous with his assertion that he leaves the option open whether he might join the GOP. Let’s take him at his word, and plan for the possibility that he may switch parties, and shift the DNC/Independent-GOP senate balance from 51-49 to 50-50; because the GOP controls the Senate President’s position, the GOP would take control of the Senate.
Conversely, if after the GOP took control of the Committee Chairmanship positions, a GOP Senator then defected, and reversed again, this would be a waste of time. The key is to have the potential GOP-defections ready, and induce them to leave before Lieberman jumps.
The message for the GOP and DNC leadership should be clear: If they would like to face the risk that one candidate may switch parties, there’s an equal chance that another candidate may shift back the other way. If the DNC-RNC leadership is comfortable with this highly unstable situation, that is their thin ice to tread.
There should be a clear message: The unstable situation could be resolved by inducing a member of the GOP to jump ship now, making Lieberman’s veiled threats to leave meaningless. Also, the Congress could choose to assign Committee Chairmanship on the basis of time, not who controls the Senate.
A third route would be to call Lieberman’s bluff, and accept that at any given moment he alone – based on his arbitrary whim – could unseat all the DNC chairmanship positions; and in a like manner, a similar transfer from the GOP to independent could change the situation again.
Lieberman has the right to implicitly suggest he may, if he doesn’t get what he wants, jump ship. However, the Senate will have to decide when Lieberman has gone to far.
Lieberman appears to believe that he holds the cards and that on his whim alone, he can get the DNC leadership to respond and give Lieberman what he wants, and there will be no consequences. Again, Lieberman is miscalculating in assuming that the former GOP Senators who have lost their seats will not work with their former Republican colleagues in the senate to induce them to rebel against the GOP.
Lieberman is also miscalculating in assuming he can press for things, and the DNC will not respond; or that the GOP will accept what he is doing as in thief favor.
A solution to the above unstable situation is to give the President exactly what he wants in a particular bill –- but make that bill contingent upon him approving Congressional rules which apply strictly to Lieberman’s situation in Connecticut.
The Constitution affords the Congress the power to judge its own elections, and Congress may make laws deciding when the Senators have or have not complied with State Law. In 1995, the US Supreme Court [514 U.S. 779] relied on the Federalist Papers when recognizing the Article 1 Section 4 Constitutional provision, Congressional pre-emption over the States on election laws. Quote:
Hamilton made a similar point in The Federalist No. 60, in which he defended the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the power to override state regulations
If the President desperately wants something, and the GOP-DNC leadership jointly decide that they’ve had enough with the prospect that the DNC will induce GOP members to defect; or that the former GOP Senators will actively work to induce GOP members to form a fourth party, a resolution to this matter is in a bipartisan manner for the GOP-DNC leadership to jointly agree that the basis for Lieberman’s election was based on fraud; and that he correctly lost the primary, and did not appropriately declare his party affiliation until after an appropriate time.
Regardless the language, the next step would be for the Congress –- on both sides of the aisle –- to agree to language the President will accept on another matter; and mess the two proposals together: First, what the President wants; and second, what will compel Lieberman to be disqualified from office. Once the GOP-DNC leadership see that the current leadership issue of Committee Chairmanship is unstable, and could backfire, they may agree that Lieberman is acting in a disruptive manner, and warrants discipline. It is up for the Senate to decide the appropriate route.
Current Chamber rules largely prohibit members of the Senate from coordinating their actions with the House such as making reference to the other chamber and vice versa. Specifically, under the rules of comity, the House leadership is generally barred from making by-name references to Members of Congress in the opposing Chamber, or making derisive comments about a specific Senators’ Comments. The Federalist Papers also remind lawmakers that, even if they know of an upcoming new Constitution, they are required to protect this Constitution as it remains in full force.
The Senate and House do not have any power to impose rules on the other chamber. If a Senator were to act in a disruptive manner in the Senate, the House cannot do anything. However, We the People do not have this restriction. We may observe the conduct of a specific Senator, and punish the House members and the President.
For example, using House Rule 603 -- unrelated to the Senate -- We the People can lawfully issue a proclamation, in the wake of a disruptive Senators' conduct, and force the House to make a decision on whether to investigate the President. Where the House and Senate cannot discipline the opposing chamber's members, We the People may lawfully require the House leadership to do or not do something which it otherwise does not do; sending a clear message to the President: If you desire to induce disruptive behavior in the Senate, We the People may require the House to go on record whether they will or will not review matters of Presidential war crimes. If the House refuses or complies is irrelevant.
The message is simple: Unlike the Congress that cannot or will not discipline members of their own chamber or another Branch, We the People can trigger proclamations that will force the issue. Whether the Congress does or does not act on the Proclamation is irrelevant: The issue is whether the President comprehends that his incitement of Lieberman's disruptive behavior in the Senate is linked with the House refusal or agreement to review matters of Presidential war crimes. If the House refuses to review the matter, as is expected, the German war crimes prosecutor may conclude this is evidence of US Government refusal to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
One false assumption Lieberman is making is that his Senate Actions will have no bearing on whether the President of the US is or is not impeached. Make no mistake, there are already three state proclamations ready which would compel the House leadership to vote on whether to investigate the President. Inaction by the Congress, when they have the power to review alleged war crimes-related evidence could be a serious issue for the German war crimes prosecutor to consider. The German war crimes planner will have to review to what extent the President and Attorney General worked with the GOP Senators to block reviews, not review evidence, or fail to prevent illegal war crimes as they have the legal obligation to do.
If Senator Lieberman on any given day cannot decide whether he is for or against a given party affiliation, there is nothing stopping any of the 47 remaining states drafting another proclamation calling for the Senator to be expelled; or doing what Speaker Pelosi has said will not occur: An impeachment investigation. The inaction on a matter of war crimes may be introduced as evidence, as NATO did prior to launching air strikes into Yugoslavia. The question for the war crimes prosecutor will be whether the State Officials exhausted all lawful options to compel the Members of Congress to do what they have the legal obligation to do: Review evidence of war crimes; and make appropriate inquiries to ensure the appropriations are not for unlawful things.
We leave it up to Senator Lieberman to decide whether he wants to make veiled threats, or focus on governing. If he would like to banter around pretending that he may or may not change his mind as a veiled threat to induce decline within the DNC, the same can be equally, and swiftly done not only to the GOP in the Senate, but also to the President of the United States and Speaker of the House.
Further, whether the Senator from CT does or does not appreciate the situation, there is already drafted a New Constitution – which, under Federalist 78 we may lawfully deny him the opportunity to comment. If the Senator would like to make comments or have any input to this New Constitution, it would be appropriate for the Senator to first decide where he is standing, and then we will see where he sits. Until then, he has been DENIED any legal power to make any comments, inputs, or have any influence on how the discussions continue.
If the Citizens of CT are unhappy that your elected officials are acting this way, you have the power to work with the Citizens of the other 49 states, encourage the Senate to jointly issue a reprimand against Lieberman; and jointly work with the other state legislators to issue a state proclamation calling for the Senate to expel Lieberman.
If that isn’t enough for Lieberman to be worried about, under the laws of war, when a legislator refuses to prevent war crimes, blocks investigations, and otherwise does things that prevent Geneva violations from being enforced, that conduct can be deemed a subsequent offense.
Before NATO bombed Yugoslavia, one of the deciding factors was the self-grant of immunity the Yugoslavian leadership had on issues of war crimes. Lieberman should take the lesson of the Yugoslavia-NATO experience to heart: If war crimes prosecutors conclude that Lieberman’s shift in party affiliation was linked with a plan to prevent enforcement of Geneva – as would be possible with a DNC-controlled Senate – that may be a subsequent issue for war crimes prosecutors to consider.
German war crimes prosecutors have already targeted the President’ attorney General; Gonzalez, along with Bybee, Yoo, Addington, Haynes, and others. If Lieberman would like to be added to the list of war crimes targets, he is encouraged to continue his obstruction, and act with confidence WE the People are able to draft a new Constitution which will effectively destroy the Senate’s discretion on Committee Chairmanships; and delegate the Senate powers of investigation to a third branch of government, effectively turning the senate into an oversight Committee of the President.
This New Constitution has been drafted. If the Senate wants to know what one of the Catalysts for these reforms, you need only look to the Senator from CT who on any given day cannot decide what he is for or against. Arguably his inability to make a commitment should be entered into evidence on matters related to whether he is or is not fully asserting his 5 USC 3331 oath of office; and to what extent his confusion is a ploy to dissuade war crimes prosecutors from holding him accountable for disrupting Geneva enforcement and investigations. Congress jointly has the power with the Executive to create policy. Attached with that power is a responsibility to prevent and investigate war crimes. Lieberman’s waffling does little to send a message to any war crimes prosecutor that the American leadership in either the Executive or Legislative branches is fully doing their moral best to prevent Geneva violations. The possible sanction for war crimes includes the death penalty, quite a price for any Member of Congress to have hanging over their head simply because one of your peers cannot make up their mind.
Authorities and Legal Points
A. Member of Congress Duty to Investigate Illegal Activity
It is illegal for US Funds to Be Spent on Illegal Things. Article 1 Section 9 attaches a responsibility on members of congress to ensure that the appropriations, if they are for illegal things, to prevent additional war crimes. War Crimes prosecutors can examine Congressional memoranda, dates they accessed the US Congress information systems, and when the personnel in the Congressional IT offices did or did not fully support information required to make informed decisions related to war crimes. It is a matter of law and evidence to what extent Information Technology experts were or were not complicit in failing to ensure that information related to war crimes information was or was not adequately preserved.
___ Does the IT staff, despite knowing that the Members of Congress have access to classified data, not have a reason they were not fully cooperating with prosecutors when they requested all information related to war crimes?
___ Does a particular GOP Senator on a particular committee not have an explanation why, despite known meetings, receipt of documents, and coordination with DoD on various classified issues, the evidence related to alleged war crimes was not followed up?
___ Once it was known that there were illegal abuses, what effort did a particular GOP Senator make to review the meeting minutes on various planning actions?
___ Does the GOP Senator not have an explanation, despite access to classified information, they cannot account for their failure to inquire, ask questions, review documents, or coordinate on issues of alleged war crimes evidence?
___ Is there a reason why despite a specific GOP Senator's name being on the classified e-mail system, and the IT records indicate that they accessed the e-mail, that the specific GOP senator did not timely take action to ensure the alleged war crimes evidence was appropriately reviewed?
___ How does the GOP Senator explain, despite public information showing that the specific alleged war crimes related documents and evidence was provide, that there was no timely call for an investigation, review, or effort to end illegal funding for what was unlawful abuse?
___ Is the GOP Senator saying that their name was never on any list of e-mails; or that the DoD never at any time ever sent the GOP Senator any document with their name on it?
___ Can the GOP Senator explain why, despite Article 1 Section 8 powers and obligations on Congress to promulgate standards related to military discipline, the Senator is alleged to have failed to take timely review to ensure the JAGs were given appropriate access to all information related to the enforcement of the laws of war on the particular issues the Senator was known to have been informed on through the specific e-mails received and read?
___ Can the GOP Senator explain, why despite the reported contacts with DoD personnel at the specific conference discussing this regulation, there was no effort to follow upon the information presented related to alleged war crimes?
___ The specific conference includes common fund cites, travel authorization codes, and meeting locations which match; the Senator is also in various photographs meeting with the specific DoJ Staff and DoD personnel currently under investigation. Does the Senator have no recollection of the conference meeting minutes which are filed in the DoD trip report?
___ The GOP Senators signature is also on various documents for specific related political activity. Does the Senator have no recollection of signing these documents?
___ Does the GOP Senator not have an explanation why the acquisitions personnel, whose names on the on the lists attached with the classified DOD reports and conferences, were not providing the information to the GOP leadership on this alleged war crimes evidence?
___ How does the Senator explain the existence of the Congressional acquisitions office voice, cell, and e-mail on the classified DoD documents; but would have us believe that nobody knew about the matters within the documents related to alleged war crimes?
___ Does the GOP Senator have no explanation, why -- despite their name, office symbol, phone number, and e-mail on the classified document -- the GOP Senator has no explanation why the information related to war crimes was never read or reviewed?
___ How does the GOP Senator explain the existence of the Acquisition office's name, e-mail, cell phone, and other identifying information on the billing information for the service provider?
___ Is there a reason why the acquisitions personnel have cell phone numbers that are linked with the DOJ Staff counsel allegedly under investigation by the German War crimes prosecutor?
___ Does the GOP Senator not know about the United Kingdom's GCHQ system which intercepts information related to government communications; and that this is stored in locations outside the US Congress information storage systems?
___ Does the GOP Senator not know about the United Kingdom's review of the Downing Street Memo, and other pre 2002-Iraq invasion planning?
___ Does the GOP Senator wish to explain the convenient stock purchases of particular information subject of the classified information, which happens to coincide with the same commercial entities granted no-bid contracts prior to the launch of combat operations in Iraq?
___ Is there a reason, despite RULE VIII, the Members of House did not fully cooperate with all inquiries and subpoenas related to the war crimes investigation?
B. Senate Expulsion Power
The Senate can expel members if they choose. Expulsion is different than Congressional laws related to judging elections [See "C" below]. Article 1 Section 5 allows the Senate to:
punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member
___ What will prevent the Senate from reviewing the evidence against the DOJ Staff counsel, or other evidence the German war crimes prosecutors are considering?
Answer: Nothing. The States have the power to compel Congress to vote on whether to review or not review the evidence. If Congress chooses to ignore mounting evidence from the German war crimes prosecutor, this inaction could be a subsequent cause of action against individual members of Congress.
Expulsion is not the same as crafting new laws changing how the State Election returns are judged. Expulsion is a strictly legislative act, based on Chamber rules.
___ Could the Senate expel individual GOP Senators for their refusal to investigate war crimes evidence they received in their classified e-mail systems from DCI, NSA, and the Department Inspector Generals?
Answer The Constitution says that the Senate may expel any member for any reason, especially if they are disruptive, refuse to act in a responsible manner, or engage in conduct that brings discredit upon themselves, the US Constitution, or any arbitrary criteria the Senate may choose to enforce.
___ Couldn't the Vice President block a review of war crimes evidence against individual GOP Senators?
Answer The President of the Senate has no vote, unless there is a tie. The Vice President has no power to compel the Members of Congress to do anything, nor compel anyone to provide access to his office, whose contents may be lawfully seized at anytime by the Sergeant at Arms. It would be a subsequent cause of action as to whether the Sergeant at Arms did or did not properly seize evidence related to alleged war crimes planning, malfeasance, or other evidence possibly connected with failures to prevent war crimes.
C. Congressional Role in Crafting Laws Judging State Elections
The powers of Congress to determine the validity of elections is clearly promulgated in the Constitution. Congress has the power to alter the standards for evaluating the CT election returns through new laws:
Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Congress can make rules related to judging laws on the basis of passing laws.
___ Is there something that shows us that Congress, acting alone, cannot judge elections?
Answer: Indeed, Bush v. Gore. The dispuate related to a law and required the Article III judicial branch to review the issue. As provided for under Article I of the US Constituion, the Congress can pass laws judging the state election results; but only the Article III tribunal, not Congress acting alone, can determine whether State Officials have or have not violated the law.
The issue for the Senate is to determine, after reviewing the laws, whether Lieberman is or is not qualified; or whether he violated any law that would disqualify him or the election results. It remains to be explained how, after Lieberman took action to communicate he was no longer in the Democratic Party, how he was able to stay on the DNC primary ticket; and then whether he did or did not properly register as an independent prior to the final election. These could be serious issues the Senate leaderhip could examine, and reject Lieberman's qualification for office, or the merits of the CT election.
___ Who is proposing the Congress can "make law" (as stated in Section 4) without a signature of the President?
Answer: Congress cannot make laws per Section 4 unless the President signs the law. If the President has "no role," then there is nothing stopping the Congress from passing laws which would define Lieberman’s method of election illegal, and he could be prevented from taking his seat before being sworn into office.
___ Is Congress saying that it can retroactively change rules on prisoner treatment in the Military Commissions Bill; but cannot retroactively do something related to election laws?
Answer: One of the problems the GOP Staff counsel in the Department of Justice have is that they have allegedly failed to enforce the laws of war. Some of the DoJ Staff have been implicated in alleged war crimes. Their names are on the list of targets of the German war crimes prosecutor. It remains to be explained how, if the Congress can pass retroactive changes to who is or is not held accoutnable for war crimes (in the Military Commissions Act), how Congress cannot do the same on election results, qualifications, or other things.
___ Why is it "OK" for Congress to "make law" permitting illegal abuse of prisoners; but it is "not OK" to "make law" refusing to recognize the election procedures of the State of CT?
Answer: After the Yugoslavian leadership retroactively granted themselves (illegal) immunity for war crimes, NATO concluded this was evidence they were not wiling to comply with the laws of war. The German war crimes prosecutor has reviewed evidence of the Military Commissions Bill suggesting the individual Members of Congress have done the same as the Yugoslavians.
___ What is the reason that Congress can retroactively grant immunity for war crimes; but cannot retroactively change the rules related to whether Lieberman is or is not qualified for office?
Answer: A war crimes prosecutor will examine whether the individual Members of Congress, in granting retroactive immunity to themselves for failing to prevent or investigate alleged war crimes, were or were not in agreement to do something else. This remains a matter of law and evidence as discovery expands.
___ Are Members of Congress worried that, by retroactively (illegally) granting immunity to themselves for failing to enforce the Geneva Conventions, that the German War crimes prosecutor might target more DoJ Staff counsel, legal advisors, and other law clerks or paralegal for prosecution for failing to ensure the laws were fully enforced and adhere to as required by your 5 USC 3331 oath of office?
Answer: All questions about the German war crimes prosecutor's investigation will have to be answered after the trial is over, and the adjudication is complete. The court record may or may not be disclosed; and the evidence may or may not be released to the defendants. There could be secret trials using evidence the Defendants are not permitted to review.
D. GOP Leadership has a problem: It doesn't know who the DNC leadership is courting
As the war crimes prosecutions bear down on the Republicans, it remains to be seen how many disaffected GOP Senators remove themelves from the Republican party. It remains to be seen how the voters and non-voters, upon seeing the mounting war crimes evidence, may be convinced to take extraordinary measures in the 2008 primaries; or to what extent non-voters are motivated to register for the first time.
The 2006 election did send a clear message: Americans, upon seeing simple evidence, can be persuaded to lawfully retaliate against a party. It remains to be explained how, upon learning of additional evidence of GOP failures to preent war crimes, the voters could not be similarly motivated to increase their turnouts, and swing in greater numbers against the Republican Party.
Sen Chafee [R-RI] remains a sitting Senator, and certainly knows others in the Republican Party who are disaffected, and concerned with the war crimes fallout. If the DNC leadership would like to explain who they have discussed the issues with, I'm sure they'll let Lieberman know after the Chairmanship has been offered. The GOP has the responsibility to ensure it appropriately respect all it's members, not those it hopes to court to the Republican Party. If permitted an appeal, the GOP Staff counsel may or may not be given the right to challenge their treatment or trial procedures.
___ Will the GOP leadership yell louder at the GOP Senators who have been denied Chairmanships under the proposed deal with Lieberman?
Answer: The GOP has a large problem on their hands. The German war crimes prosecutor is reviewing evidence, e-mails, and other information flowing between the classified e-mail system, the Intel Link, and into the GOP Staff counsel's office. This will show to what extent the Congressional leadership knew of illegal abuses, or other violations of Geneva, but failed to act. Information related to illegal activity cannot be lawfully classified. The Intel Link and DCI have openly published their classified information systems, subjecting them to lawful review. The GOP failed to hide all the evidence, and inadvertent disclosures are admissible to the German war crimes tribunal. Classified information can be used to lawfully indict someone for war crimes.
___ What is to prevent other GOP Senators, who are denied a Chairmanship under RNC control of the Senate, from jumping to the DNC?
Answer: The GOP leadership does not comprehend that foreign fighters in Lebanon were able to use encryption-interception equipment which the NSA could not intercept.
___ Does the GOP have total control over whether their GOP Members do or do not visualize the benefits of becoming independent, joining the DNC caucus, and enjoying a Chairmanship?
Answer: The GOP does not comprehend the extent to which information is flowing to of the United States to foreign war crimes prosecutors.
___ If the DNC Senators were to realize that they could gain control of the Senate, is there not one DNC Senator who might be willing to share a Chairmanship with a 3rd DNC Senator, and offer their Chairmanship to the incoming former GOP Senator?
Answer: As more evidence surfaces, the GOP Senators will have to make some decision: Whether they want to remove themselves from what the German war crimes prosecutors view is a war criminal enterprise; or whether they become targets of the war crimes investigations for failing to remove themselves from efforts that illegally agreed not to enforce the laws of war, as required under 5 USC 3331.
___ Does the GOP have an explanation why, despite Lieberman's threat, the GOP intelligence systems are unable to determine who inside the GOP is actively being courted?
Answer: Although the GOP may control a minority party, it does not have total intercept capability. The lag time between ongoing communications, and review by the White House staff is not immediate. There is a lag time. The NSC is concerned that the decryption technology is used stateside, but the NSA does not have 100% coverage.
___ Does the GOP plan to use waterboarding to make every GOP Senator share what they have been discussing with the DNC, using communications methods the NSA cannot intercept?
Answer: Under the laws of war, one nation that violates the laws of war becomes subject to reciprocity. Conceivably, because the members of Congress have individually agreed to illegally permit unlawful abuse, they are lawfully subject to like abuse should they be detained for questioning; or asked to explain their refusal to fully enforce the laws of war as required.
E. New Constitution
Federalist 78 Recognizes the Power of We the People to Offer a New Constitution at a Formal Ceremony; it is a permissive recognition of what We the People have the power to do: Work outside Article V, and draft a New Constitution.
Here is the language [Emphasis added]:
Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.
___ Where does it say that a New Constitution is specifically prohibited?
Answer: Nowhere, unless you're in the government hoping to make someone incorrectly believe that We the People are stuck with something that will not work, is not enforced.
___ Does Federalist 78 anywhere deny We the People -- the source of all sovereign power -- the right, power, and ability to craft a New Constitution?
Answer: No, it does the opposite: It leaves open the option. Conversely, the Constitution does not grant this power to either the Federal Government or the States, so as per the 10th Amendment, this power is reserved to the People.
We the People have the inherent right, as explained in the Federalist Papers, to present to the American public with a New Constitution at a formal signing ceremony.
It is legal non-sense for any attorney to suggest the Federalist Papers have no legal force. The Supreme Court docket is full of case law relying on the Federalist Papers to help define what the Constitution means. Consider the following sample legal authority and scholarly legal research mentioning the Federalist Papers:
545 U.S. 1
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549
Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101
___ What is the basis for anyone to say that the Federalist Papers have no legal force?
Answer None, the Supreme Court relies on them to interpret the Constitution.
___ If nobody is allowed to rely on the Federalist Papers to decide what the law means, who should have confidence in those legal shills who contradict the explicit Supreme Court precedents which do the opposite?
Answer There is no reason to have any confidence in those who claim the Federalist Papers have no legal authority.
___ Is there a reason that people in the US Government are incapable of understanding the Federalist Papers; and the relationship that the Federalist Papers have with helping Justices on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution.
Answer: Yes, they are arguably not competent in the law, as evidenced by the German war crimes prosecutor's legal actions against Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Haynes, Bybee, and others.
___ If the Federalist Papers cannot be used by Judges, what method do the defective legal shills in the US American Bar Association plan to use to correctly interpret what the Constitution does or does not mean?
Answer: The lawsuit brought against the arguably defect legal counsel in the Department of Justice was based on the DoJ Staff counsel lack of appreciation for the rule of law, and Geneva requirements banning all abuse.
___ Is there a reason why the lawsuit brought to the German war crimes prosecutor against Rumsfeld, and alleged war criminals was not crafted by American Bar Association-related attorneys?
Answer: It remains to be understood why the DoJ Staff counsel, despite DOJ OPR oversight, failed to do what they should have done; or how many of them are disbarred for engaging in alleged rebellion against the US Constitution; or how many of them are indicted for war crimes.
F. Only Government, not We the People, has to comply with the Amendment Process
New Constructions can be crafted, denying the Senate, House, and President powers they have abused, violated, or not enforced. A New Constitution can be implemented outside Article V. [See: 94 CLMLR 457 for discussion of drafting a New Constitution outside Article V.]
Here's what it looks like: It strips the discretionary power of the Congress to do or not do investigations; creates a Tri-cameral legislature, and divides executive power into three Executives. The approach would create a fourth branch of government and recognize the inherent right of We the People to impeach Members of Congress when they fail to enforce the Geneva Conventions. In short, it hopes to address the problems highlighted since 2000 under the Republicans.
G. Power of State Proclamations Is Well Established
House Rule 603 permits States to issue proclamations calling for an impeachment investigation. If the Congressional leadership refuses to vote, We the People may determine this to be a factor when providing evidence to the war crimes prosecutors.
Whether Congress does or does not take action on a State Proclamation calling for impeachment is a secondary matter. Inaction itself could prove fatal for both parties, especially when the German War crimes prosecutor produces additional evidence of conduct the Congress refuses to review. It is a secondary matter whether the Congress does or does not consider removal decision; the indefensible legal error is to refuse to conduct oversight against the Presidedent.
It is legal non-sense to argue that State Proclamations have no effect: Congress, if it were to refuse to take action, could be seen by the non-voting Public, and overseas war crimes prosecutors as refusing to do what it should: Enforce the law, subjecting additional US personnel to war crimes indictments.
A failure to investigate, gather facts, or review well understood Presidential violations of the laws of war and US Constitution could be adjudicated as being complicit with war crimes. At Nuremburg, Staff Counsel and Judges who failed to enforce the laws of war were prosecuted for war crimes. Civilian leaders in the Japanese Government, who had the power to investigate, prevent, and review war crimes were also prosecuted.
If the DNC leadership refuses to take a vote, and the State Proclamations are tabled, this is evidence the leadership is not being responsive to all legal requests to do what they have a 5 USC 3331 obligation: Protect the Constitution, engage in oversight, and conduct reviews of war crimes. The war crimes tribunal in Germany will have to decide whether Members of Congress were individually complicit with war crimes; to what extent they failed to enforce the laws of war as required; and to what extent they failed to investigate and review matters despite the power to do so.
Lieberman’s indecision sends a clear signal to war crimes prosecutors: The American leadership, despite a war crimes problem, is permitting a single member of the Senate effectively blackmail the DNC leadership from doing things it should: Investigate war crimes, and lawfully hold the President to account by removing him from office. War crimes investigators will consider whether the American leadership did or did not assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations to ensure the Constitution and Geneva Conventions were fully protected, not arbitrarily ignored on the veiled threat of one person.
Members of Congress should consider whether Lieberman’s conduct is acceptable; or whether the prospect of multiple party transfers will be disruptive to effective governance. Foreign fighters will consider the seriousness or disingenuousness of American governance on the basis of whether the Congress does or does not effectively engage in oversight, not excuses to walk on eggshells.
Committee Chairmanships, when they are held by a party in rebellion against the Constitution, can be disruptive to the Constitution. When the Committee Chairmanship assignments are issued to one party, yet the split in the Senate is narrow, one change in party affiliation can upset the senate Leadership. This forms a highly unstable situation, especially when another party vying for control has dissention in the ranks, poor discipline, and betrayed former members are working with one party to form a fourth party.
The DNC and GOP leadership will have to decide whether they want Lieberman to raise the prospect of a change; and risk having a Committee Assignment process changed twice when the GOP Senators create a fourth party.
Lieberman has to decide whether he wants to be an Independent, Democrat, or a Republican. If the Senate leadership in both parties, acting in a bipartisan manner is willing to accept this highly unstable situation, the conclusion is that the Senate leadership does not want stable government, but a highly charged, partisan environment where Committee Chairmanship seats can be one or lost on the basis of one man, not majority rule.
At best, Lieberman believe he’s in a powerful position, able to make veiled threats to get what he wants from the DNC. The DNC will have to decide how much abuse they want to put up with; or, if Lieberman does leave, will the GOP have to suffer the same threats, and Lieberman might switch again.
The way forward is to accelerate the timeline, find GOP Senators who are disgusted with the President, and receptive to overtures from GOP senators who have lost their seats; and induct them to form a fourth party outside the GOP-DNC-Independent Nexus.
If the GOP-DNC leadership is not happy with the unstable situation, and Lieberman is seen as playing both sides against each other, there is nothing stopping the GOP-DNC leadership from jointly agreeing to expel Lieberman from the Senate.
Lieberman’s threats to leave or not leave should be monitored. A solution is to adjust committee assignments on the basis of % control. Barring that approach, until the Senate chooses to compel Lieberman to make a firm choice, the leadership positions within the Senate will remain uncertain unless one man agrees. Arguably that is tyranny and does not make for stable government.
The way forward is to encourage many dissatisfied, betrayed GOP Senators to leave the GOP with the DNC-promise of a Committee Chairmanship; and force the move before Lieberman makes his veiled threats again. Once the GOP defections occur, Lieberman will have no power or ability to imply he may or may not do something; rather, if he does not focus on governance, he may well find himself the target of specific legislation that refuses to recognize his election; or subsequently expelled from the Senate.
What You Can Do
___ Remind individual members of Congress that the German war crimes prosecutor continues to review evidence retrieved from the classified Congressional e-mail systems. The information includes open source information related to plans, allegedly illegal memoranda, and other documents transferred between the CIA, Joint Staff, NSA, DoJ and the Members of Congress. It remains a matter of law to determine, as was done in the Tokyo war crimes trials against civilian government leaders, to what extent the individual GOP Senators knew, or should have known, about war crimes that they should have, but failed to investigate, review, and prevent.
___ Work with the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors; encourage them to enter into evidence Lieberman’s statements related to party affiliation; and have the War Crimes Tribunal review to what extent Lieberman’s waffling interfered with proper war crimes investigations, enforcement, and prevention; and consider whether the Congress took the appropriate actions to prevent what may be an illegal roadblock to war crimes enforcement.
___ Work with your state Attorney Generals to lawfully prosecute a sitting President. Encourage your State officials to continue monitoring the evidence collection, and German and Italian war rimes prosecution efforts; and bring like charges against the President and other Republican leaders in state court. This is not forbidden, and consistent with state officials' oath to protect the Constitution, especially when federal officials refuse to enforce the law.
___ Work with the GOP-DNC leadership to share your views on the unstable Chairmanship situation, and inform them of your views that the potential loss of chairmanship on the basis of one man is hardly impressive.
___ Encourage the Senate to adopt rules that will change the Committee Chairmanship assignments from one-party-majority-control to one based on % control.
___ Work with the GOP to encourage them to leave the Republican Party; and work with the DNC leadership to offer the GOP defectors a Chairmanship.
___ Make it clear to Lieberman that he is in an unstable situation; that his actions are encouraging GOP Senators to reconsider their affiliation; and that if Lieberman leaves the Independent Party and joins the RNC caucus he’s sending a mixed signal of whether he wants to be independent, democrat, or a republican.
___ Encourage the GOP-DNC leadership to jointly draft legislation that the President will agree, and include language that would specifically apply to the Lieberman election issues, and craft language that would specifically require the Senate not to recognize Lieberman’s election result, and effectively expel him from the Senate. Draft a Bill the President desperately wants, but includes the offending language: Either the President will agree to the language and get what he wants, but expel Lieberman; or the President will protect Lieberman, and not get what he wants when he refuses to sign the Bill on a measure he desperately wants.
___ Encourage the GOP-DNC leadership, in a bipartisan manner, to jointly agree whether they are satisfied with the highly unstable situation with Committee Chairmanship assignments; or whether they would prefer We the People to refrain from offering meaningful inducements to the GOP Senators from revoking their affiliation with the GOP.
___ Encourage the DNC leadership to offer anyone in the GOP a Chairmanship if they agree to revoke their affiliation with the GOP; and that Chairmanship is conditioned up their staying affiliated with the Independents or the DNC.
___ Remind Lieberman that the Committee Chairmanship assignments are not based on his arbitrary whim; but on Rules which can be swiftly applied to Lieberman. If Lieberman on any given day cannot decide whether he is with the Independents, Democrats, or Republicans, perhaps it is time for the GOP-DNC leadership to jointly debate whether the Lieberman is or is not fit to remain a Senator. He can’t make up his mind on a simple matter related to who is allied with; what’s to say he’ll have a clear decision on something more weightily like where his office should be located; his staff assignments; or whether he wants to follow the law.