Impeachment: We the People May Arbitrarily Impose Our Will On Tyrants
I was reading Katharine’s blog and came across an interesting notion from somewhere in the blogosphere: That We the People should consider whether Impeachment is or is not arbitrarily used.
Should Impeachment be used for impeachment sake? The question, the way it is structured might suggest one answer, while a careful analysis might suggest the opposite.
Overview
This note outlines from the Constitution, the basis to arbitrarily use the impeachment power against Tyrants when they arbitrarily abuse power. We rely on a distinction between the notion of power and the law; and define the law as being something which is not applicable to issues of power. Power is only constrained when there is a ministerial duty, as is the case with the President and his waging war under the laws of war: The President's power must be constrained; the Power of We the People is not limited by any ministerial duty.
After discussion notions of power as they are unrelated to issues of the law, we expand the analysis to show how the current debate unreasonably considers issues and factors which are outside the intent of the Framers. Rather, by using inappropriate measures to define when impeachment should or should not be used, we constrain ourselves to whether we can or cannot use power against those who are not similarly constrained.
Key Point: Power is not the same as the law.
Governance Test
One factor We the People may use to decide whether Members of Congress are or are not fit for office; or whether they should be charged with failing to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath is whether they do or do not comprehend the difference between power and the law. They are not the same.
Members of Congress who do not comprehend the difference cannot be trusted to assert power when it is required; nor comprehend when the law has been violated. We leave it for another day for more competent leaders to present themselves to demonstrate they understand their oath is to the Constitution – the umbrella through which We the People delegate power to the House to impose its will, arbitrarily if it desires, upon the Executive.
Arbitrary powers are appropriately asserted against Tyrants who are not constrained by the law, but compel others to submit to illegal requirements which violate our Constitution. We the People agree to cooperate based on the Rule of Law; power is the means by which Our Will is imposed on the tyrant in the Oval Office.
The Constitution
One purpose of the Constitution is to ensure our rights were protected and power was not abused. The Constitution grants the power of impeachment specifically to one chamber of the Congress, leaving the power of the conviction-removal to the other chamber, the Senate. The well understood separation of impeachment-removal power is an important distinction we will discuss shortly.
Consider the language of the Constitution:
Article 1 Section 2The House of Representatives . . .shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
On impeachment, consider what Article I Section 2 does not say:
(1) Nowhere is there any mention of the “law of impeachment”
(2) There is no mention of the “ prosecution of impeachment”
(3) Nor is there any mention of the “Decision of impeachment”.
Rather, impeachment is a Power which is not constrained by any law or rule other than what is in the Constitution. Indeed, there are rules of procedure related to how the Congress will implement the power of impeachment, but the important distinction is that the Constitution nowhere characterizes impeachment as anything but a power
Removal Criteria Unrelated to Impeachment Criteria
The Constitution does not require the House to comply with any standard of evidence on impeachment. The Constitution only requires the President to be removed if he is convicted of treason, high crimes, and bribery. "High crimes" was intended to include maladministration, but this is only a factor for the Senate to consider, using criteria it may or may not wish to share.
The House is not required to confine its allegations to anything which has been defined. As was done at Nuremburg, standards of evidence and crimes can be retroactively crafted, created, and devised to punish new wrong doing; or define new things the House arbitrarily says warrants the assertion of the impeachment power. The President and Senate have no power to review, check, or prevent the House from arbitrarily doing anything, so long as it is linked with the unreviewable Impeachment Power.
The House is free to ignore precedent, and it defines what it does or does not include in the impeachment. There is no requirement that the impeachment meet any legal standard. Bluntly, impeachment is not related to the law, merely an assertion of power.
The removal decision is the same, but unrelated to the House. As with the House, the Senate may choose to define any course of conduct as being one that warrants conviction, satisfying the removal-criteria in the Constitution.
Review
The House can impeach the President for anything, and define it as being whatever it wants. The House can define anything as warranting impeachment; and We the People have delegated the House the power to define how it chooses to assert the power of impeachment. The House may or may not wish to follow the rules of evidence; and may choose to invent new names for new things. Power allows the House to do what it wants.
The Senate may or may not agree with the House; and may choose to convict the President for something else that it defines as being something warranting removal.
It is a separate matter whether We the People do or do not agree with the House or Senate. However, when the pattern of abuse is wide, the House may choose to impeach the President multiple times, and is not required to condition its impeachment power on whether the Senate will or will not convict; to do so would unconstitutionally permit the Senate and President to dictate to the House how the House of Representatives shall or shall not assert the Impeachment power.
Power vs. Law
Power is not the same as the law. Power is something that is not necessarily constrained by law. The law is a specific rule, requirement, or ministerial duty.
Power is something else. The President has broad powers which are finitely constrained by statute and specific ministerial duties. Congress has the power to pass rules and requirements imposing on the Executive specific things that he shall do; or shall not do.
Unlike the law which is specific, a power cannot be restrained by anything, unless We the People through an Act of Congress compel that power to be used in only specific ways. We constrain the executive from waging barbaric war by requiring him to assent to the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war; we constrain the Executive from violating our rights to privacy by requiring him to assent to the FISA court when asking for a warrant to engage in violations of our privacy.
David Addington in the Iran-Contra Report, and in subsequent conversations with Attorney General Gonzalez, Bybee, and Yoo got it right on what power is: Power cannot be constrained unless those with that power have a legal requirement to constrain their use of power.
Paradox
When we discuss the issues of impeachment, the absurdity of Addington’s remarks on Power is the contrast he and the poodles in the DNC have toward power.
Despite Addington and the President viewing power as something that is not constrained Ref, Addington and his ilk would have We the People believe that the impeachment power should be constrained.
Addington and others fail to make the credible argument. Nothing in the Constitution constrains We the People; rather, We the People delegated the power of impeachment without reservation or qualification to the House of Representatives.
The Constitution does not require, and the House of Representatives are not required to comply with any rule of evidence as it relates to Charging the President. Impeachment is a charge: It may or may not be related to criminal activity; and the charge may or may not be linked with evidence.
The Power to Charge with Impeachment means the House of Representatives, as a single body, may use or not use any criteria, rule, standard of evidence, or whatever they choose. The rules of evidence may or may not be used.
Members of Congress in the House may choose to rely on the rules of evidence to publicly justify their decision. They are not required to, nor can they rely on their oath of office as a basis to assert that they should or must. The oath of office does not say that the rules of evidence shall be applied fairly to the President on matters of impeachment; the oath office only says that the Members of Congress shall assert their oath faithfully to protect the Constitution.
Watch For This
Notice carefully the excuses the US government gives to take action. You will see the curious contrast. On one hand, the likes of Addington (illegally) argue that the President cannot be constrained by law (which he can, through ministerial duties); but then they reverse their argument suggest the Congress must comply with the law (which does not exist on matters of impeachment) or that the House must comply with the rules of evidence (which the President ignored when abusing prisoners).
The object of the President’s enablers is to narrowly define what conduct the House can or cannot charge, but ignore the intent of the framers: To make non-treasonous conduct like maladministration subject to removal. See ref: [ 49 Duke L.J. 1 ]
Every time the President uses the argument to say, "the House cannot do that," the same argument can be thrown at the President: "Despite clear rules, the President ignored them. The House is not constrained." The President’s argument against the House is really about what the President failed to do: The rules do apply to the President in re FISA, Geneva, and rendition. [There's more discussion of what the President is doing: Asking that he be given special consideration by relying on the Constitution; but he denied the same Constitution when abusing We the People and his powers: Details]
Notice also who's buying the President’s nonsense: It's the same double standard and non-sense on evidence the President offered for Iraq WMD. The Same Congress that refused to examine the evidence and marched for war; now wants to endlessly investigate issues, as opposed to having multiple, phased impeachments of what is known, and easily proven. It's up to Congress to make the case why they have two standards on evidence: No standard on Presidential-WMD assertions; but a different standard relative to whether that Presidential conduct is examined or punished.
There's no excuse for glossing over the illusory evidence for war, but then saying that misconduct cannot be examined or the basis for removal. Just as the Congress rushed to war, it can also rush to start Presidential accountability and force multiple impeachments.
Similarly, notice the contrast on another issue. Congress ignored the Constitution on the Military Commissions Bill, illgeally passing a bill which retroactively deprived people of rights, and asserted Judicial powers. The President is in no credible position to argue that the Congress has to comply with the law on impeachment or the rules of evidence -- the President has no power to tell the House what to ignore or pay attention to; and no Court can review what the House does on impeachment. The President would ask that the law not apply to him on ministerial duties (which it does), but that the same Constution be rewritten to permit him to define how the House asserts its unreviewable powers (which he cannot).
All Presidential excuses for why the House cannot do what it has the power to do apply to the President in why he cannot violate the law, or assert powers which are constrained by ministerial requirements. Anything said which objects to the House on matters of impeachment must be thrown back at the Executive: The argument defeats his legal position, and he's arguing against himself on issues of crimminal law, evidence, and ministerial duties.
There's another convoluted, inconsistent argument. Some suggest the charges against the RNC leadership is "bad" and might cause a blowback against the DNC. If that was true, wouldn't charges against the DNC (for their alleged failure to report to the IG-US Attorney what they knew or should have known was not done) be "good" for the DNC: It would cause a negative backlash against the GOP for holding the minority leadership accountable for what they allegedly failed to do?
All accountability, fact finding, and assertion of the rule of law is good. Excuses for inaction is frivolous. As with Iraq WMD, the apologists for government inaction are arguing, on the basis of igorance, that something should or hsould not be done using an arbitrary timeline.
___ How would anyone know, without doing an investigatino, whether the "benefit of inaction" or the "possible consequences of blowback" are not linked with (a) any review of the evidence; and (b) no decision on what action is or isn't appropriate; and (c) no assessment as to whether that consequences is or isn't appropriate.
___ Why is fact finding valid in one situation, but not another?
___ Why is open debate appropriate in one situation, but not another?
___ Were the lessons of Iraq learned: To make decisions based on evidence, and review, not assertions of "this is the conclusion" without doing balanced fact finding all branches of government?
___ How does anyone know, looking forward, without having started an investigation, whether the evidence is or isnt' valid; or whether the to-be-decided plan is or is not linked with the right or wrong decision (which has not yet been made)?
Review
Notice the common theme:
Real evidence -- No review or prospect of accountability.
Fabricated evidence -- No review or prospect of accountability.
Americans have not learned the lessons of Iraq WMD, nor are they willing to apply it to effective Congressional oversight and impeachment against the President.
How the impeachment power is used is a separate matter from whether the impeachment power can or cannot be arbitrarily used.
The issue before We the People is not whether the House should or should not arbitrarily use power, but what is a reasonable use of power against a President who arbitrarily ignores the law.
The law means nothing to this President. There is no reason We the People should be concerned with the law, when law does not apply nor is relevant to the Power of Impeachment. Ask you friends: Where there is no legal constraint, and there is no limitation on doing something, why is anyone going to constrain themselves from doing something against those who have to respect for them.
Power is different than a rule or reason. When the President – as a creature of the Constitution – abuse of power without regard to the law, he cannot require anyone to be constrained by laws which do not apply; nor may anyone credibly argue outside or inside Congress that the use of impeachment should be based on rules of reason, laws, evidence, or any other fact. Rather, when a President abuses power, and he believes that there will only be consequences based on “some arbitrary reasons related to prudence”, then all the President needs to do is abuse power, but convince others to believe that consequences are not reasonable.
Indeed, it is this thinking which permitted this President to abuse power: We the People, through the reckless laziness of Congress, have been inducted to believe that one man had a superior right to abuse Power despite the law which did apply; while at the same time, when it came to matters of using like power against the President, some (inconsistently) argued that the Same President who was unconstrained by any rule on whether he did or did not abuse power, should only be subject to rebuke if We the People constrain our lawful retaliation on the basis of rules which do not exist.
Again, there is no rule or law which defines how impeachment can or cannot be used. Rather, there are specific rules on how the President can wage war or request warrants to engage in warrantless surveillance.
The President has abused his power by ignoring the laws of war and FISA requirements; We the People may lawfully abuse this President, and reciprocate, by arbitrarily impeaching him for no clear reason. It is up to the President and his poodles to comprehend the reasons. We the People need not explain or justify our power, especially when We the People have not agreed to be constrained by any rule on the use of the Impeachment Power which we delegated to the House.
The President and his poodles cannot credibly argue that We the People should be concerned in how we do or do not use our impeachment power. This President has shown no respect for the laws which he agreed to follow which would constrain his power; we need not show him any respect, especially when we have no legal requirement to be constrained in how we lawfully wield the Power of Impeachment.
Review
Impeachment is a power, not a law. Laws are specific requirements which the President agreed to follow. He has ignored these laws.
Impeachment is not constrained by the law. The President is constrained by the law.
Powers of impeachment do not have to comply with any rule, nor must they be used only in a manner that the President agrees. Rather, We the People are the only factor in whether the impeachment is or is not appropriately used.
We the People have the power to use impeachment anytime we want. The President may not use his powers, unless he complies with the laws.
We the People may lawfully abuse the President trough impeachment when he has abused his powers.
We the People, when faced with a President who will not submit to the law, need not be worried whether some argue whether impeachment is or is not being appropriately used.
If the President would like to be free from the power of impeachment, he can either do his job as he agreed, under the umbrella of the law; he can resign; or he can wage war against We the People. This President has chosen to wage illegal warfare against the American people, ignore the Constitution, abused powers, and says that We the People should consider whether we are or are not capable of retaliation. Indeed, we are: It is called Impeachment.
Impeachment is a black eye on any Executive. Some executives, it would appear, may require multiple impeachments.
This President, if he were not worried about impeachment, would not have cared who did or didn’t win the 2006 election. Rove and the President assumed the GOP would retain control of the House, insulating the President from impeachment. They are wrong. The GOP lost.
Going forward, it is the duty of Americans to remind their elected officials that when dealing with a tyrant, the issue is not to play nice, nor to agree to terms and conditions which this President does not follow; nor is it a requirement for any Member of Congress to comply with any rules when the Constitution does not constrain the House on how the impeachment should or should not be used.
It is the burden of the House and Senate t make the case that their impeachment and removal decisions are appropriate. Some Members of Congress may rely on the rules of evidence, but this is not a requirement.
Some members of Congress may choose to vote against impeachment because their loyalty lies with something other than their oath to the Constitution. That vote may be the basis for We the People to bring 5 USC 3331 charges, and to disbar them from practicing law.
Criteria Contrary To Intent of Framers
There is an important argument to consider
Some members of Congress may believe that the House should only impeach if the Senate will likely convict. This is an error. Impeachment is separate from the Senate decision. If anyone were to suggest what the Senate view on impeachment is, or whether a Senator is or is not relevant on matters of impeachment, they have not read the Constitution.
Review: The Senate has no say on impeachment. This is a power exclusively delegated to the House, not the Senate.
It is not appropriate, when considering issues of the Impeachment Power to decide whether that use of power is or is not appropriate based on anything the Senate may or may not do. The implications are noteworthy and deserve exploration.
Again, returning to basics let’s consider what impeachment is: A power of the House, not the Senate. The Senate, during the conviction-trial phase may, like the House, ignore the law, and ignore all precedents, standards, and laws. However, the Senate may choose to rely on any rule, construction, law, piece of evidence when making their decision. What the individual Senators do will have to be something they justify to their constituents. The Senators may or may not privately ignore or follow the law. The Constitution does not delegate the power of conviction-removal to the Senate no the basis of their agreement to enforce or not enforce the law: The decision of the Senate to convict-remove a President from office is not required to be linked with anything. The Senators could decide to ignore the Will of the People, and remove from office a popular president.
Why? Because they can. Simple as that.
Working Backwards from the Senate to the House
You will soon see the smokescreen the President is suing to dissuade action on impeachment.
It is up to the Senate, not the Senators or We the People to decide what criteria -- if any – the Senate choose to use to review the charges.
The Constitution does not require any specific thing from the House; only that there is a charge from the House. That charge from the House, which the Senate independently reviews, is not required to be anything that resembles anything.
The House could, if it wanted simply say, “We like the President so much, we’re going to impeach him simply because we can.” Again, whether that is or is not Constitutional as an exercise of power is a different matter than whether the action of a particular Member of Congress is or is not something their constituents will or will not support.
The Senate is not required to review any evidence. It may review evidence if it wants; and it may or may not make a removal decision based on any evidence. There is no Constitutional requirement that the power of the Senate only be linked with something that is consistent with the law, evidence, or a specific requirement. Again, the Senators may choose to publicly state – to justify their decision – that they voted one way or another based on the evidence, or what the law says.
However, the Constitution does not require any Senator to vote only on the basis of evidence; nor does it require that the impeachment power of the House be linked only with evidence.
Only the Senate is granted the power to decide whether to remove or replace the President. They are granted the power to conduct the second phase of the review; the Senate does not have the power to tell the House whether or not impeachment is warranted; nor may the Senate communicate to the House that the power of impeachment should only be used by the House if the Senate agrees that it will, in advance, promise to remove the president. Such an arrangement is not Constitutional: It illegally puts the Senate in the position of dictating to the House terms and conditions which only We the People have the power to impose.
We the People did not delegate to the Senate the superior position to tell the House when it was or was not appropriate to impeach. Consider the specific voting standards required to impeach vs. the removal. Only just over 50% are needed in the House to impeach; but to remove requires 67% or 2/3. The difference is noteworthy and warrants exploration.
Presidential Loyalty to only 1/3 of the Senate
Let’s expand the discussion of the House and Senate votes on their respective powers. Consider again the President’s problem: He no longer has the majority in the House. What is he to do?
If he can convince the House and Senate to jointly agree not to assert power unless the Senate agrees, the President has induced the House to do the following:
(a) Change the impeachment threshold from whether 51% of the House do or do not agree; to
(b) Whether the 1/3 of the Senate does or does not agree.
Stay with me: You will see what is happening.
Consider the interesting prospect. The President only needs to induce 1/3 of the Senate or 34 Senators to side with him, then convince the Senate and House not to impeach, implicitly arguing, “I, as President have 1/3 of the Senate with me, you cannot impeach unless the 1/3 on my side agree to what the House may or may not do.”
Impeachment Thresholds
Impeachment is a Power of The House
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -
Correct -- House 51% Required
Incorrect -- Senate 34% Can Block
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -
Impeachment Powers:
• Constitution delegates Power of impeachment to House
• Speaker Delegated No Constitutional Power on Impeachment
• State Proclamation Can Compel House to Vote or Not Vote
• State Proclamation Cannot Be Ignored
• Speaker Cannot Block House of Representatives Action
• Whether the Senate may or may not remove is irrelevant
• President and Senate have no say on Impeachment
• Only the House as a Chamber may decide to assert
or not assert Impeachment Power
Nowhere in the Constitution is the President
granted any power on matters of impeachment or removal. The only power of impeachment is delegated to the House. The issues going forward are simple, and warrant public discussion:
___ Why is the House allowing 1/3 of the Senate to immunize the President from a power only delegated to the House?
This is a sham argument. The House is being inducted by an abusive tyrant to rely on illusory criteria not recognized in the Constitution. Noting in the Constitution permits the Senate or the President to compel, argue, or require the House only to exercise its Constituently-delegated impeachment power on conditions and terms that the Senate and President agree. Rather, it is the threat that the House may arbitrarily impeach the President that should be a check on Presidential lawful use of power.
Despite the prospect that he House could -- at any time, for whatever reason it arbitrarily chose – exercise the impeachment power, this President was undeterred in his illegal abuse of power, and violation of the law: He does not have the power to violate the law when using his powers.
Rather, only We the People may impose power without regard to the laws which do not exist: Through impeachment.
Review
The President is constrained by the law in how he uses his powers.
The House is not constrained by any law, other than the Constitution, in how it impeaches.
The House is not constrained by any body or branch, including the Senate or the President, in how it chooses to exe5rcise its Impeachment Power.
The House may choose be constrain its actions based on (irrelevant) wishes, desires, and requests of the President or Senate. However, these are not lawful, nor compelling reasons for the House to not assert its power, especially against a President who has shown no respect for the Supreme Law: Our Constitution.
Let’s consider some questions, as they relate to the Power of impeachment, the House, and the assertion of Legislative Power against the President.
___ How many Senators get to vote on impeachment?
Zero. No Senator has any power to impeach. This is a power only delegated to the House.
__ How many Representatives are required to impeach?
Just over 50%.
___ How many Senators can tell the House whether impeachment or is not the appropriate use of power?
Zero. The Senators may not lawfully bind, constrain, or limit the House to do or not do something on the basis of what the Senate may or may not do. The intent of the Framers was to separate the legislature into two branches not simply to divide its powers, but to ensure that the Congress – as a single body – did not abuse power as the British Parliament did before there were two chambers.
The intent of the Framers wasn’t to make protecting the Constitution impossible, but to prevent the Legislature from abusing power and thwarting the Executive from engaging in State Affairs.
However, the way forward isn’t to pretend, as Addington and Cheney have done, that the “interest of the state” (however that is defined) is solved by keeping secret illegal activity which Congress has expressly forbidden, is not legal, and is Contrary to the laws of war and our Constitution.
Laws As Guides, Reminders To Support Prudent Planning
The way forward isn’t to accept the argument that because the President may wish to do something, he should be able to do it, even if there is a law against it. Rather, the laws are there to inspire in the President a respect for the boundaries. Consider the results when the President ignores the law, does things in secret, and refuses to reasonable boundaries: The President secretly plans absurd military adventures in Iraq without considering evidence, the real risks, and the requirements to prevail in all phases of the combat operations.
Had the President respect the laws of war, he would have – going into the planning – have in mind the requirements to ensure the post-invasion planning included sufficient security forces to meet his Geneva requirements. Because he ignored the laws of war, the planning did not meet the security requirements he had on him related to prisoner detention or civilian security. Arguably, the civil war in Iraq in November 2006 is linked with the decision of the President to ignore the laws of war.
Impeachment: Does the Senate Have a role?
___ Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can only be impeached if the last 1/3 of the President’s support in the Senate wanes?
The Senate has no role in the House exercise of impeachment power. There is nothing that Constitutionally links anything in the Senate with what the House does or doesn’t do. The House, even if only 1 Member of Congress supports impeachment, may attempt to charge the President with a crime, and reject the effort to impeachment.
__ Is there anything in the Constitution that binds the House to impeach or not impeach on the basis of any evidence, rule, or requirement that the Senate must agree with that impeachment power?
No, the Senate has no power to exercise nor not-exercise impeachment; nor may the President Constitutionally compel anyone to “not impeach” based on what the Senate does or doesn’t do. The power of impeachment is only delegated to the House: “The sole power of impeachment.”
Whether the Senators individually say they will “only convict-remove” the President on the basis of evidence is something that they will have to explain, debate, and defend before their States. The House has no power to compel the Senate to use or not use the law, evidence, or other things which may or may not be presented at the trial in the Senate.
The House may offer evidence, but the Senate is not required to pay attention, consider, or discuss the evidence. It may choose to convict-remove the President for any reason or for no reason. It is up to the Senate in how it asserts power, and unrelated to a criminal trial in whether someone is or is not lawfully convicted of a crime.
Again, the distinction between Power and the law bears repeating. Power of impeachment is not constrained by any law; and the power of conviction-removal is not constrained by any rule. The Senate and House may choose to create, ignore, or invent any absurd construction they devised as was intended by the Framers: To constantly keep the President on his guard, never certain.
The intent of the Framers was to make the possibility of Presidential impeachment one of speculation, uncertainty, and something which would – by design – consistently check the President with the eternal fear, “Could I be challenged by the House with an impeachment?”
Whether that charge is or is not “fair” is irrelevant. The President has not “fairly” respect the law, there is no reason We the People should be bound to feel as though we should or should not “fairly” do anything to him through the lawful use of the impeachment power. Rather, to feel “guilt” for having similarly, arbitrarily wielded power against an abuser is a sign of the perverse power of this tyrant: He has abused power, and then inducted We the People to feel “guilty” for imposing needed consequences with a swift impeachment.
Nothing in the Constitution says that a President can only be impeached once. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a President cannot be impeached every day. The only requirement is that the House accepts it is not dealing with the law, but with power and a creature of the Constitution: The President. He is not a God, he must constrain his use of power on the basis of the law; the House is not constrained by “the law” in whether it does or does not use the power of impeachment.
Again, power and laws are not the same.
___ How can We the People credibly believe that the Framers intent – that of leaving the power of impeachment only to the House -- has been honored, when the House incorrectly believes that it may only use its power if 1/3 of the Senate agrees to leave the President, and join the remaining 2/3 that might otherwise approve?
This is the crux of the tyrants’ ruse: To make the House not believe it can assert power unless the House agrees to new criteria outside the Constitution.
The Constitution does not require the House to recognize what the Senate may or may not do; nor does the Constitution give the Senate or President any say in whether the House does or does not impeach.
Rather, despite the abuse of power, it remains a matter for the House leadership to explain why it has not impeached; and why it has not asserted its power to check what it is abusive. Power is not something that must only be explained when used; rather, the same burden on the Members of Congress to explain a decision not to act is something that is outside the issues of power. Once Member of Congress decides, for whatever reason, not to do their job, and assert power, thereby putting at risk the Constitution, this becomes a criminal matter: To what extent did they not assert their 5 SUC 3331 oath of office to protect the Constitution.
Once a Member of Congress refuses to act -- or declines to use their mind, as was done on the eve of the invasion of Iraq – that inaction, and refusal to inquire becomes the basis to review that Member of Congress conduct:
___ Are they making decision based on matters of the law related to review?
___ Is the review of the legal matter appropriate?
Again, power is not the same as law. Members of Congress, when they refuse to assert their power and protect the Constitution, are allegedly violating their oath. Members of Congress, when they choose to exercise power, do not have to condition that use on whether the law says it is or is not accept: There is no law which tells Congress when or how it shall impeach; one law that relates to members of Congress use or non-use of power is whether they have or have no faithfully asserted their oath of office and protected the Constitution.
To repeat: power is not the same as law.
___ Does the House have to review evidence before impeaching the President?
No. The House, using whatever convoluted reasons or non-reasons can impeach the President at any time. The House is not required to have any evidence.
For purposes of convincing We the People that their decision is sound, the House may or may not choose to be specific with the evidence.
The House has been delegated the power to impeach in any manner that it wants. Indeed, it may choose to not act when it should; or act when it should not. Both outcomes are eternally reviewable by WE the People. Ultimately, the decision to impeach is one that We the People may or may not choose to consider when evaluating whether a specific Member of Congress is or is not fit to remain in office; or whether someone else is better suited.
Again whether there is or is not precision, specificity, evidence, or other details within that House decision to impeach is not required in the Constitution. Political opponents of those who are in the House may choose to interject to the debates the illusion that Members of Congress should or should not have done something: These are not valid arguments; indeed, some candidates may find a crowd who believes that Tyrants should be treated with respect, regardless their disdain for WE the people, the rule of law, or the Constitution. Refusing to impeach is not a sign of respect; it is a sign of weakness and fear: Despite the power of impeachment, the House refuses to assert the granted power of impeachment.
It doesn’t matter why they refuse to assert their oath, nor what excuses they have been induced to believe why power should not be asserted. The issue is to what extent a supposedly weakened tyrant is able to induce the majority to not do what it has the power to do: Lawfully impose power in the same arbitrary way that this Executive has arbitrarily ignored the law.
On issues of power, where the law is not a factor as is the case of impeachment, there is no requirement the House – as a legislative body -- to ever condition the assertion of that power on whether the President, Senate, or evidence will support that assertion of power. Again, there is no requirement on the House to present any evidence; the evidence is merely a means by which Members of Congress, when they face challenges at the next election can make the case to their constituents that they did or did not do the right thing.
The House and Senate may impose their will and power on the president – through impeachment and removal -- at any time with or without evidence. It is the job of the Members of Congress, after that decision to defend their choice, and make the case that the Member of Congress is fit for office. Having evidence to support the decision makes it easier to make the case to We the People that the Member of Congress is fit for office; however, not having the evidence is not a requirement for the House or Senate to assert their power.
There are two different things:
(1) Power
The use of power by Congress, possibly unrelated to any rule or law and not necessarily linked with any evidence; and
(2) Law
The evidence or arguments Members of Congress may use to justify in the mind of We the People that the Member of Congress should be in the Congress.
Review
(a) Legislative Powers
The power to impeach is not constrained by law. Congress has no legal requirement to meet when it impeaches or removes the President.
Congress imposes its will by passing laws. Congress has no Constitutional obligation, nor is there a requirement, that Congress “make a law” related to when or if the President can be impeached. Congress, in passing a law on impeachment, would be asserting powers against itself, not the President. Such a law would, when signed by the President, unconstitutionally give the President a veto power, or means to qualify when the House may or may not exercise its unqualified impeachment power, we have solely delegated only to the Congress, not the President.
The President has no power to vote on impeachment, nor may he vote for any rule or law that qualifies how the House uses its impeachment power. The only check on the House is outside the impeachment, and reserved only to the Senate: They were granted the separate power, outside impeachment, to conduct the trial, and separately decide the non-impeachment decision: Whether the President shall or shall not be removed.
(b) Executive Powers
The power to wage war, detain prisoners, and engage in domestic electronic surveillance is constrained by the law. The President has legal obligations called ministerial duties which are not the same as Power. Congress has the power to impose ministerial duties on the President in the form of laws.
The President may not compel the Congress to follow the “law” on impeachment: There is no “law” of impeachment – there is only power.
(c) Impeachment Decision vs. Voting Decision
The Congress does not have to follow any “law” or “evidence” when making a decision whether to Impeach or Convict the President. The “law” and “evidence” are useful methods for Members of Congress to defend their decision, not necessarily make a better case that they are protecting the Constitution.
The Case For Arbitrary Use of Impeachment Power Against This President
We start from the premise that power, unrelated to the law, may be arbitrarily used. Whether it is prudent or imprudently used is a secondary consideration.
This President has no power unless it has been delegated to him. The President agreed to follow the laws, ministerial requirements on him to constrain his power, and ensure he does not abuse power or violate rights.
Power is something We the People delegated to the US Government. We the People are the sovereign and source of all power. We may revoke, redelegate, and grant new powers anytime We the People craft a New Constitution.
We the People are not constrained by laws which do not exist. There is no law related to how the President is or is not impeached – there is only the delegation of that power solely to the House.
This President, unlike We the People, has legal constrains on his use of power. He is not allowed to do some things. In exchange for him obeying the law, we may agree not to remove him from office; We the People may remove him from office even if he doesn’t violate the law. It is our decision which We the People can lawfully do through the Impeachment-removal process. No President has an inherent right to complete their term in office. The Constitution recognizes he is eternally subject to removal; We the People have not prohibited, and the Constitution does not prohibit, arbitrary removals from office, simply to demonstrate that we can.
The power of impeachment is a Constitutional Check on the President. When a President ignores the law, he sends a clear signal:
(1) Despite the prospect of removal, he ignores the law and Our Will;
(2) Despite the prospect of impeachment, he is not swayed to comply with the law;
(3) Despite the ease with which Members of Congress may find public support to charge him with a crime, the President acts as if he is above the law; and
(4) Despite the ease with which members of Congress may find public support to remove him from office, the President acts as if he cannot be removed from office.
These are stunning conclusions by any President. The legacy of Cheney before the Iran-Contra affair suggests there has come into fashion a segment of society a group of people who believe the laws do not apply; that our Constitutional system is not the basis for our organization; and that the rule of law is something beneath them. Until they devise a lawful alternative, they agree to work with the system that we have, not with the system that they might prefer: One where the President is above the law.
The issue before We the People is what is to be done when, despite the prospect of removal, the President and his alleged co-conspirators in the Congress illegally agree to put the President above the law, and pretend that the Constitution is not there.
These are serious matters. The law and oath to protect the Constitution are not sufficient constraints. However, We the People are not constrained on what we do on the basis of the law. There is something called power.
Power is not like the law. Power can be imposed for any reason when it is not constrained by any law. Unlike the President who is constrained by the law, the impeachment power is not constrained by any law. The only constrain is the perceived consequences Members of Congress have for asserting power.
Yet, consider the object of that power – to target the President. This President, despite the requirement to follow the law, and only legally use power, would have some believe that he may only be impeached if the House does or doesn’t do something.
This is absurd. It asks us to embrace the false notion that the President is above the law in his use of power; but that all others are required to follow the law in their use of power. More absurd is the reality that there is no law constraining the House; but there is a law constraining the President.
The error is multiple:
(1) Pretending laws do not apply to the President, when it\ does;
(2) Pretending the House is constrained by the law, when it is not, on matters of impeachment powers
(3) Pretending the President can impose on the House requirements of the law; b
(4) Pretending the President is not required to submit to the law which the Congress imposes, and
(5) Pretending the President can agree, with exception, to some aspects of the law, despite him not asserting his only means to ignore the law: The veto.
When Congress takes impeachment off the table, it is saying:
(1) Congress will not examine the above non-sense related to whether Power is or is not constrained by the law;
(2) Not review the inconsistent standards which the President ignores, but creates and imposes on the House and Senate to immunize him from impeachment.
The issue is not simply power, impeachment, or the law, but to what extent Members of Congress, as they were with the Patriot Act and Iraq WMD issues, induced themselves to believe that non-sense should be the basis to formulate public policy.
Reading a bill should not be a difficult requirement. Indeed, this Congress sends a clear signal that it would prefer We the People to clean the messes it creates when passing illegal legislation, forcing one unfortunate soul the task of doing what Congress should have done before enacting the illegal legislation – ensuring that the law was Constitutional before spreading its drivel to We the People to have imposed on us, despite its being in violation of the Constitution. A remedy would impose an institutional mechanism to require a reading of the bill; and a confirmation that the bill is Constitutional before it is voted upon. Congress prefers to rubber stamp. We the People may revoke its stamp, and delegate the power to review the Constitutionality of a bill; and deny, revoke, and disallow the legal presumption that Congressional bills are always Constitutional. Despite the oath, this Congress assented to what was not only an illegal abuse of power, but illegal violations of our Constitution. Despite the power to debate, review facts, gather evidence, and engage in secret debate, this Congress freely chose to defy its oath.
The debate on the impeachment power is no different. The same crew, which assented to the absurd arguments not to challenge the President, is doing the same: Pretending that it must grovel before the President before it asserts its powers.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the impeachment power must be imposed only for good reasons. Rather, when opposing a tyrant who does violate the law without regard to reason, there is hardly a credible case to be made that one abused power should be only checked through power that meets a different standard.
If the President shows enough disdain for the law to defy the Constitution without regard to Consequences, there is little to suggest that an equally, lawful assertion of power against the President – through the impeachment power – should meet a different standard. Whether the use of impeachment does or does not meet a different standard is a separate issue.
We argue, when, as is the case with this President, an Executive arbitrarily abuses power, the House reasonably may arbitrarily impose the President not once, but multiple times without any requirement to explain itself. It is irrelevant that the Senate may or may not agree to remove the President or convict him of any crime.
Rather, it is the continued arrogance this President has shown toward the law, his oath, and the Supreme Law, that makes it equally impressive that some would believe that the House should condition its use of power upon standards which do not apply, and this President has ignored: The law.
It is only for an individual Member of Congress to argue that their decision to impeach or convict the President was right or wrong at a debate on a question of their election; however, power related to Presidential impeachment and removal are not necessarily linked with any specific rule.
Unlike the President who is constrained by the law, the Congress is not constrained by any real rule, construction, or standard related to what is or is not arbitrary. The House may at any time arbitrarily impeach the President without any reason simply for impeachment sake. Whether those Members of Congress survive the next election is a secondary issue, but unrelated to the issue of whether the House can, could, or is allowed to arbitrarily impose its impeachment power on the President. With this President, anything short of arbitrary abuse of power or open combat with sustained combat losses, appears to have not effect.
It is not reasonable to condition the use of power on the basis of moral criteria, especially when confronting a tyrant who has no respect for morality: The Rule of Law, ethics, standards of conduct, or decency to honor his oath to God.
It may be desirable to think that others might “rise above” what the President does, but there is no requirement that they meet a standard that does not apply to the impeachment power: The issues of the law and evidence.
Addington said (incorrectly) that the law does not apply to the President. He was wrong. He is under indictment for war crimes, subject to disbarment.
However, let’s apply Addington’s rules on issues of power where they do apply: We the People and our power to impeach through the House. Addington got it right: We the People are not constrained by any law or rule on matters of impeachment.
Everything Addington has every suggested about the law and its relationship to Presidential power, should be turned on its head, and injected into the debate on the matters related to impeachment.
Where Addington says the laws do not apply to issues of Presidential power (even though he is wrong), We the People should reciprocate and apply Addington's perverse notion of the law and impose that through the impeachment power.
How can Addington have it both ways? He can’t. He cannot argue that one creature of the Constitution is above eth law, but all other creatures, in checking that abuse of power, are constrained by non-existent standards. The same goes with arbitrary use of power. When Addington (incorrectly, illegally) says the Executive’s power is not constrained by the law, that should be applied to the application of the impeachment to the President; where Addington (illegally, incorrectly) says the Executives decisions are not reviewable by a court, that should be taken to heart on matters of evidence and the law as they related to impeachment.
The goal of impeachment isn’t simply to punish the president. It is to wake the Executive Branch up: You have defied your oath, and even if you choose not to enforce the law, the Congress has the power to arbitrarily do nasty things to you, with fully support by We the People.
Arbitrary use of impeachment is the best this President can hope for. At worst, he’s looking at a war crimes conviction and a lawful adjudication of execution by hanging for his alleged war crimes. Should he be so luck to avoid not one, but multiple impeachments.
There is no legal requirement that impeachment be for a “good” reason. The larger issue is to consider what alternative, besides arbitrary abuse of power, will awaken this Executive. Arbitrary use of force by IEDs, and arbitrary action by heads of state to defy this President simply empowers this President to continue his abuse against We the People. It wasn’t the Iraqi insurgency in early 2001, before Sept 2001, which prompted this executive to start illegally monitoring our communications: He chose to abuse power regardless a reason. Despite the law, he arbitrarily decided he was above the law.
This President and his poodles in the DNC and GOP cannot credibly argue that arbitrary abuse of power – through impeachment – is not an option. Rather, it may be the only option, short of a war crimes indictment and lawful imposition of the death penalty – which might dissuade this President from waging wider war, additional Genocide, and deaths of more Americans. We’re not safer, former allies and supposed benefactors of American power are now our enemies, emboldened to destroy us. When unreasonably invaded or abused, we would do the same, as we did after Pearl Harbor and 9-11.
Nobody should have any sympathy for any political creature who (a) abuses power; and (b) assents to that abuses; or (c) says we must be “prudent” how we respond to that abuse.
No. The need for prudence has long passed. The time for raw imposition of impeachment power arrived long ago.
The time to debate whether there should or should not be an impeachment; or whether there should or should not be an arbitrary impeachment is a matter for the Congress to debate on the record. Excuses outside the Congress are just that: Excuses of Congress not to face what it refuses to face – the creature it helped create by refusing to read the bills; and not timely documenting the abuses; nor timely working with the State officials to jointly remove from office a President.
Nothing in the Constitution prevented any Constitutional officer in this Congress from, as a private citizen, taking their evidence to their State Attorney general, and asking the State Attorney general to prosecute a sitting President. Nothing.
Nothing stopped any Constitutional officer in this Congress from, as a private citizen, asking their State Legislatures to draft a proclamation calling for the Congress to investigate the President. Nothing.
Nothing stopped any Constitutional officer in this Congress from, as a private, citizen, from taking their case to We the People, to share the problem, and assert their oath. Nothing.
Nothing stopped any Constitutional officer in this Congress from, as an elected official, from going to the well of the House, and charging the President with a crime. Nothing.
Arbitrary power is the only things which this Congress recognizes in Afghanistan and Iraq. This Congress lazily reviews issues, makes excuses for war, and when confronted with the reality that the war was illegal waged, did nothing to assert their rights to work with the state attorney generals to prosecute those who violated the Supreme Law.
We the People have no need to define success or failure in terms of what is or isn’t arbitrary. This Congress – Members on Both sides of the aisle – have not done their moral best to faithfully execute their oath of office. It was private citizens who dared to do what this Congress refuses to do – Assert the Power of We the People.
State Proclamations: We the People.
State Attorney General Discussions: we the People.
Now, this Congress wants to pretend that it is “We the People” that has the obligation to do something. Where is the Leadership in this Congress to assert its oath? They arbitrarily, because the weather is unfavorable, would like to pretend that they have to take a “measured” course against the arrogant tyrant – relying on that call of “measured action” – to dissuade what is most needed: The arbitrary, repetitive, and successive use of House power against this President.
Impeachment isn’t simply a black eye. With this President, he may require multiple black eyes without multiple impeachments. Is that arbitrary? Who cares! He didn't care about us. Why should we care whether he and his poodles do or do don’t think this is arbitrary.
Pearle and the NeoCons, as reported in Vanity Fair, do not look at Power as something that should be prudently used. They relish the idea of unchecked ability to arbitrarily abuse power. Their concern on the eve of the 2006 election, as Katharine well linked to, wasn’t whether they might win or lose; but whether, had they more resources, might have asserted their illegal agenda. This is hardly the idea or notion of a group intent on giving up despite the open knowledge that their illegal activity has been arbitrary.
Arbitrary use of the impeachment power should be the least of this nation’s worries. Under the laws of war, once a nation permits illegal warfare, all violations may be reciprocated by the enemy combatants. The issue isn’t simply whether US military personnel are or are not abused; the question is to what extent contractors, support attorneys, and others remotely related to the illegal war effort can or cannot lawfully be targeted. Is that arbitrary? No, it’s there as a lawful sanction to mitigate the chances that illegal warfare is waged.
Indeed, as the case with impeachment, the President and others ignored the possible sanctions and waged illegal war. What is to be done with people who, despite the law, and obligations, ignore their promise? The only reasonable course of conduct is the law reciprocation of arbitrary use of power: Impeaching him simply because impeachment can be used. For no other reason. Until this president comprehends that the House is willing to successfully damage his legacy with multiple impeachments, he has no intention of ending.
Look around you. The President would have you believe that he’s in a weakened position. That’s absurd. A weak President would be resigning, accepting that it’s over; a strong President would induce the Congress to “worry” whether there might be a “backlash” if power were asserted. “Oh, not too much, it might be bad news for you.”
Indeed, the poodles in the DNC are allegedly complicity with this ruse because they fear a close examination of the President might expose them to a blowback: We the People might realize they were told of things, but did not act, as they should have to follow up. Indeed, despite the requirement to assert their oath, as already stated, there were no state percolations; and there was no leadership from members of Congress on matters that could have been started at the state level.
Arbitrary use of power is the only thing that will awaken this US Government. It does not respond to pleas, requests, and the threat of proclamations. You’re free to spend your time working with your friend to compel Congress to do something – by design, the more time you spent trying to get Congress to do something, the less time there is watching the President -- by design.
It’s time for the Congress to stop trying to do the President’s job; and We the People should not have to do the job of the Congress: Providing the leadership to assert our power through impeachment.
There is no excuse for any or all Members of Congress single-handedly, or in a small group, from going to the Well of the House and charging this President with a crime. Why are they putting their oath behind all things? We can only make the adverse inference that the delusion they suffered while ignoring the NSA violations before Sept 2001 continues.
These Members of Congress ,despite the popularity, are not fit for office. Power, when it confronts a tyrant, must meet the tyrant on the terms that will prevail, not “play nice.”
Suggesting there has to be a “good reason to impeach” implies that we have to wait until arbitrary criteria to the liking of a tyrant” are satisfied. This will never happen. As with the decision to impeach, once the “new criteria” are met, they’ll change the standard.
The standard is what the Members of Congress took an oath to in 2001, 2003, and 2005, and soon again in 2007: the promise to protect the Constitution. That oath does not say they will “only assert their oath if it is easy” – the oath does the opposite: Binds them to do what is uncomfortable: Look in the mirror, face reality, and assert power against someone who is arbitrarily abusing our rights, violating the Supreme Law, and pretending everyone else has to respond to new laws he arbitrarily enforces.
Arbitrary is this man’s middle name. Let him enjoy repeating his name over and over: Arbitrary.
Who is expecting We the People to comply with a standard that is “too good” for this tyrant to ignore? Poodles expect We the People to comply with standards that do not apply. Impeachment is not constrained by law – it is sheer, raw power, and meaningless unless it is used arbitrarily against an arbitrary tyrant.
Arbitrary use of power does not require a good or bad reason to reciprocate. The original abuse, however documented, investigated ignored, or justified, is sufficient to repeatedly do anything with lawfully imposes our will on the Executive without warning through impeachment.
The more arbitrary the use of impeachment, the more dazzled the tyrant will be – impressed that We the People finally respect him enough to abuse him with the same arbitrary, raw use of power he used against us. Don’t play nice with bullies: You impose raw power on them, and lawfully destroy them, then remove them from the political stage.
Arbitrary is needed. Arbitrary is a surprise. Arbitrary will awaken in the Executive another problem: The rude reality that there are more problems on the way, it’s only started, and that at the end of his ordeal might lay the ultimate, lawful section by a war crimes tribunal: The lawful hanging by the neck until he stops kicking. That’s not arbitrary, but needed. Our enemies feel the same, and will continue to destroy your families, end the lives of your children and loved ones simply because this Congress was too lazy to lawfully reciprocate for the arbitrary abuse of our Constitution.
You were warned that the work ahead remains. Regardless who won the election, one party would make it easier. But this did not mean it would be easy. The same political fight you waged since 2001, after you saw the abuses of power, will have to expand, continue, and deepen. Consider the 2006 election as if it never happened: the same energy you had, the same drive, and the same focus you had to sustain your raw assertion of power against tyranny will have to continue. This is not over until the tyrant is lawfully removed from power. Either he resigns; or he suffers more political losses between November 2006 and 2006 when his term ends; or he is lawfully removed from office through either impeachment, or state level prosecution.
The way forward is to argue for the abuse of power which Addington advocated, and tailor his remarks to the abuses this House is authorized by We the People to arbitrarily use without regard to the successive political bruises this President sorely needs at the hands of a House impeachments – plural.
This President has not backed down despite his loss. There is no reason we should agree not to arbitrarily assert raw power through the House directly at the political foundation of the NeoCon’s foundation. As with Hitler after WWI, if the NeoCons are not successfully pummeled and lawfully destroyed, they will return and redo what we have seen since 2001. They view their loss in 2006 as an opportunity to recover, create a new agenda, and reassert the original dogma: The unbridled believe that a President is above the law, and that some people do not deserve the protections of the Constitution.
Impeachment is not bounded by law. It is power. We the People, when employing power through the House, are not constrained by laws which do not exist.
The message to the President is simple: When you abuse power, We the People reserve the right, without notice and for arbitrary reasons, to your Our Will to awaken you, without notice and without any good reason other than for one: Because We Can.
Impeachment must be done for impeachment’s sake. This tyrant and this Congress recognizes the validity of absurd reasons which they do not respect: The rule of law. If they honored their oath, would they not have done what We the People are doing for them – organizing, leading, and creating a movement to force the Congress to do what it has the power to do: Assert power through impeachment.
Power does not require balanced standards, especially when standards of its use or abuse are inconsistently applied, enforced, and proffered.
Some suggest impeachment should not be done for the sake of impeachment. Why not? Those who abuse powers are not doing for good reasons; they are doing it for their love of abusing power. If their intentions were good, they would have planned to well care for the Iraqi civilians after invading, not leave their country destroyed, in a worse condition, and inspire the Iraqi civilians to take up arms against Americans.
We the People are the source of power; We cannot be denied the power to reciprocate for the arbitrary abuse of power: Abuse the President through impeachment because we can. Denying ourselves the power we already have -- the power to arbitrarily use like power against an arbitrary tyrant -- asks us to tie our hands in the face of tyranny. That is stupid, and we are not required to be a poodle. We are We the People, the sovereign and source of all power -- the power to wage lawful war; and the power to arbitrarily punish tyrants who refuse to assent to Our Will. It is irrelevant that there is a “good” or “bad” reason – the reason is self-evident: The President is a tyrant, and the Congress is complicit with his illegal rebellion against the Constitution. The poodles in the DNC have refused to lead, leaving the leadership and requirement to check the Executive up to We the People – following a convoluted, difficult, but possible route.
We the People have been uniformly abused by this President, and the leadership in both the GOP and DNC leadership. Our goal is not to play nice, but to lawfully subject the Members of Congress to Our Will – the lawful threat of sanctions, the lawful use of Our Will to remove them from office, and see that those who refuse to lead and assert their oath are forever banished from the political landscape through lawful sanctions.
Congress is in no position to decide or debate whether the President should or should not be subjected to arbitrary use of impeachment: This Congress is complicity with the arbitrary, reckless abuse of powers – both Houses, both Chambers, both parties, and both sets of leaders. Arbitrary abuse of power by this tyrant was only possible through the complicity of Members of Congress who defied their oath, did not assert their oath, and refused to work with We the People to openly discuss what would be done,.
The objective of an open debate in Congress on impeachment is to plan: What is to be done; how will the President’s abuses of power be checked; and should there be a second, third, and successful impeachment. The Constitution does not require that a President only be subjected to once impeachment; he is required to subject himself to the will of We the People as express through the Constitution, the Supreme Law, and the acts of Congress which he signs.
The reasons for discussing the “arbitrariness of the impeachment power”, in my personal opinion, are linked with one thing – the absurd twisting by this tyrant of the political minds of free thinking Americans: To induce them to believe that a tyrant should be treated to a standard he must not be treated; and compel the House to assent to standards which do not exist – whether the Senate or President choose to cooperate, agree, or support what the House does.
What the House does – by way of asserting raw power of impeachment -- is unrelated to whether the Senate agrees, how it votes, or whether the President’ allies support or oppose the Senate decision to assert or not assert their power.
By the very nature of the convoluted argument – as we saw with the pre-Iraq=invasion debate, as discussed on scrapple face – We the People should apply the lessons of the legal non-sense, and move forward with resolve: The leadership is not acting on the basis of produce, but the same non-sense which indicted the Members of Congress not to read the Patriot Act; to blindly rubber stamp the decision to use force; and the continued arrogance of the Members of Congress to not work with the States to compel the President to assent to the rule of law.
The Iraq non-sense debate led to non-sense excuses to ignore prisoner abuses; inducted some to not see the similarity of the abuses of prisoner abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; and was the same non-sense which induced the Congress to debate whether it was “good or bad” to torture people. Sheer non-sense: Geneva outlaws all abuse. Congress has in a meaningless way defined something as “non-torture” when it is still abuse, and illegal.
The same non-sense which inspired this nation to assent to non-sense in Iraq is alive and well on the debate over the President’s political future. We should have learned the first time, after Iraq, what defective leaders in Members of Congress will do: Debate on matters unrelated to the issue – this issue is about raw power. The law is a secondary, and unrelated issue to the question: Shall the Congress, as this president has done, arbitrarily use power to assert its will against the President.
The only reasonable answer is: What took so long; and when will the next impeachment be, and the next?
Tyrants will compel poodles to play nice and fair – requiring the poodles to explain why they are or are not asserting power. No explanation is needed or required. Unlike Geneva here is no “law of impeachment” that the House has to respond to; there is only We the People – “Why did you not arbitrarily impose your will sooner in a like manner?” The fear is not the backlash for action, but the backlash for having waited to assert the arbitrary power this President may or may not respond to. Surely that alone is sufficient to warrant his removal from office: Even the prospect of a lawful execution for war crimes will not deter the man. Why is he needed anywhere on planet ear? Upon lawful execution, arbitrarily send the rotting carcass into outer space without a state funeral. Why? Because WE CAN.
Power is not something you play nice with when dealing with tyrants. Impeachment, unlike the laws of war – it is unconstrained by any law, but what is in the Constitution.
Anything the tyrant has done, or is suspected of doing, forms the reasonable basis for the House to arbitrarily impose sheer, raw power on the President. Arbitrary abuse of power by the President triggers arbitrary slaps for any or no reason.
“Playing nice” is what has driven this Tyrant to abuse power. He believes he can abuse power and that We the People would do nothing. Now we should record for history that he’s wrong, as is Congress, with is mistaken believe: We the People can and shall lawfully impose our will through arbitrary, and like abuses upon him. Those in the DNC who would put their 2008 election agenda objectives before their oath are arguably complicit with his abuses and should lawfully be subjected to the same arbitrary intrusions, investigations, and checks on their alleged failure to assert their oath of office: No warning, not cooperating, and now compromise on whether the rule of law and arbitrary power shall be impose on this tyrant.
Only the President, and his poodles, ask others for restrain without a fair showing of the same.
There’s no reason to show respect to those who abuse power, especially when We the People are not required. There is no law that says we the people to, at any time, give fair and reasonable notice to those who defy our Constitution. There’s not, but irrelevant legal fiction that constrains us from lawfully retaliating by arbitrarily using power against the President.
This President has double standards on the precedents with respect to power. Curiously, after ignoring reason and prudence, at tyrant will compel others to do what he refused: Assent to some standard.
Tyrants who have defied the law, want to invoke the law to avoid power and its consequences.
It is a losing game to confuse power and the law. Someone who mobilizes others to ignore the law has abused power; the law need not be considered; power may be arbitrary abused by the tyrant. Tyrants need to know that We the People shall reciprocate – and lawfully, arbitrary assert raw power at a time, place, and manner of our choosing.
This tyrant has shown no respect for the law. He is consumed by power. There is no reason to show respect for him, his power, or his legacy.
Impeachment is appropriate, especially when a tyrant proves adept at creating illusory barriers to having power arbitrarily imposed on him without warning. Do not play nice with this tyrant. On matters of power, not the law, arbitrary abuse warrants arbitrary retaliation.
Abuse is measured by the inconsistency. Tyrants claim their abuse on us has been for our protection; but that all other protection – against the tyrant -- must stem from a double standard: With deference to what is not applicable, and the tyrant does not respect: The rule of law.
The rule of law is not the same as the power which We the People, through impeachment, must impose arbitrarily. Abusive Presidents -- tyrants -- are the ones who will convince the public that the rules o flaw and precedent apply to impeachment. They do not. These are excuse to not arbitrarily assert power, as is needed, against a tyrant who arbitrarily abuses power, and induces others to believe that he should be treated with respect, not the arbitrary tyrant that he is.
The goal of the tyrant’s new standard is not to ensure reasonableness, but to confuse the issue: Whether reasonableness or unreasonableness should be a bar to imposing our power. The distinction, although interesting, is irrelevant.
Tyrants are peaceful when they shown to be weak, and reminded of their weakness. Tyrants are powerful when they can induce others to believe they are weak, while they remain strong, able to dissuade action and arbitrary power from being imposed on them. When a tyrant can convince the weak that an irrelevant standard applies to the tyrant, the tyrant has one a double victory: No accountability for the original abuses; and further subversion of the minds of We the People to induce us to forget that this tyrant did not consider his obligations before abusing the power we delegated to him. Despite having no lawful choice, this tyrant abuses power and our Supreme Law. We have the choice and should remind the tyrant that we retain the power and right to arbitrarily impose upon him at a time of our choosing the arbitrary impeachment he does not want. All the more reason to give it to him arbitrarily.
In the unlikely event you missed it, the law and power are not the same. Power does not recognize evidence – it may, but is not required to honor reality, evidence, or the law. This tyrant views reality with disdain; we need not trifle ourselves, when dealing with impeachment power. To issues of fact, evidence or law. That requirement has been well met and arguably self-evident. We’re only talking the degree that the power is lawfully and arbitrarily used against the Tyrant to check his power.
Impeachment does not have to be linked with evidence – it may, but it dies not have to be: It is a power. When fighting a tyrant, powers to check the tyrant do not have to be linked with any standards the tyrant thinks we might believe are relevant. Impose the power upon him in the same way he has abused power over us: Arbitrarily, without concern with the issue unrelated to the power of impeachment – civility, or the law. If the tyrant would like to be treated with respect, then he should show respect; if he should like to be treated with distinction and honor, he should show honor. He does neither, he deserves neither; and the poodles should not deliver either.
It is up to the Senate, not a non-licensed attorney, to decide the criteria to remove the President. The Senate may, like the House, ignore the law, precedents, and standards – they may or may not rely on evidence to vote. The laws, standards, and evidence are excuses Members of Congress used to justify their vote, not for the needed, arbitrary assertion of raw power against tyranny.
Evidence is not a requirement when the prospect of the President being checked is devoid of the law. It is arbitrarily abused to require the House to decline to assert power simply because they disagree on whether the Tyrant should be subdued slowly or quickly. We the People should compel the inquiry -- by We the People into Congress – into what will remedy the glacial interest this Congress takes into viewing matters of arbitrary abuse of power by an Executive. Swift remedies are needed, not glacial cruises by the tyrant’s beach.
If the Senate refuses to act, their decision will be something WE the People may or may not review at the election. It depends if the weather is favorable. Perhaps, if the tyrant cooperates, Americans might choose to face reality – the US government recklessly abuses power in an arbitrary way, but pretends it’s “someone else’s fault.” Indeed, it is the fault o few the People to permit this defective system to continue unremedied as is possible with a New Constitution.
The Senate is not required to review anything; nor make a fully informed decision. They may do what grand juries do not – assert raw power regardless reality. The Senate may or may not choose to convict; and may or may not choose to review evidence. These decisions are matters which the House need not consider; the power of impeachment is the sole power of the House, one, in this case, it should arbitrarily use frequently, often, without hesitation.
This tyrant has arbitrarily abused power and violated rights. If impeachment triggers new abuse, and the Senate does nothing, we may lawfully remove 1/3 of the Senate in 2008, then try again in the first weeks of 2009. Until then, the House may be compelled to impeach a second time, then a third, then a fourth, until the President either resigns, aggress to cooperate with the law, his is lawfully removed from office through state prosecutions, or his is lawfully subjected to a novel procedure warranting his removal for mental incapacity.
We the People have options. This tyrant has abused power arbitrarily. There is no reason to have a debate over whether we should ort should not arbitrarily respond. The issue is whether we will let the tyrant rest wile we lawfully prefer to impose Our Will through more arbitrary assertions of Our Will.
We need not cooperate with our abuse; nor tolerate the laziness of the DNC-led House which pretends that arbitrary assertion of House power is something that cannot be considered. It must be used.
The impeachment power is delegated to the House on the basis of a simple majority. The Senate, and whether it may or may not convict has no bearing on whether the House can or cannot assert its power. It is not Constitutional for anyone to argue that the House can only assert power if 67 Senators Agree. The Senators have no power to compel or deny the House from asserting its power.
Arbitrary use of the impeachment power will achieve one simple thing, lost on most people who cannot comprehend what goes through this tyrants mind: It is a simple message that he shall be tarnished for eternity, and there is nothing he can do about it. We the People have the final say what the political consequences are for those who do or do not choose to assert power as they are required to do to protect this Constitution. We the People acted in November 2006. More non-voters can be inspired to believe again in America; and the idea that a Republic can work. Our legacy is whether we can inspire confidence in a Constitutional system; or whether we are left embracing the outdated notion of what no longer works – the idea that respect and civility will compel others to reciprocate. It does not, and is unrelated to whether impeachment is or is not arbitrarily used, as is the case now when it is needed.
The threat that 51% voting form impeachment must not be seen as an arbitrary threat of power; but the Constitutional assertion of power against arbitrary tyranny.
Taking impeachment off the table, or binding impeachment that it must only be used for non-arbitrary reasons, increases the chances that this President will abuse power. This was the same concern of the 1974 Watergate Grand Jury report. What may or may not be a separate solution we leave for another day; for now, the issue is to embrace the need to arbitrarily use the power of the House to remind the Tyrant, We the People can prevail, defeating him on his terms, and remaining in fully compliance with our Constitutional agreement – to assert power through the House impeachment.
This is not only an issue of power; justice and revenge are secondary, but outside the worry of the House: Power may be arbitrarily used through impeachment against any tyrant.
Relevancy of the House
Reconsider the Senate. This is important. If the Senate, not the House, is the threshold for action – a question of whether they will or will not remove the President – then any President can ignore House, keeping just over 1/3 of the Senators on his side; and abuse power without the prospect the House will do anything.
If the House, like NATO, is going to remain relevant, it must succeed, not make excuses for the abuses it cannot manage. It is one thing to talk about cleaning the house, but is of little interest if that House is irrelevant.
Reason, prudence, law, evidence, and standard are not required, but may or may not be considered by the Congress.
Because impeachment might be arbitrary, is all the more reason to use it arbitrarily against this tyrant. Impeachment is an eternal stain: He was impeached, perhaps multiple times, because he believed he was immune.
If Impeachment were meaningless, Rove and the GOP would not care who controlled the House. A president who leaves a flames smoldering mark on the Constitution deserves at least one black eye of impeachment, a second one to make the point, and perhaps a third to make it sting.
Precedent
History is irrelevant to decide whether the impeachment power should or should not be used against this President for what he by free choice did. This is an unprecedented abuse of power. No President should ever believe that a similar abuse of power will go unchecked by the House through impeachment, regardless the prospects of removal by the Senate.
When power is abused, similar power may be imposed. Asking for impeachment on the basis of specific rules, evidence, or reason defies what the framers intended. If the President can ignore the House and 2/3 of the senate, he only has to court 1/3 of the Senate, and ignore those who are a check on his power. This means, in light of the Senate’s Classes I, II, and III, a President could ignore the Senate for 4 years, and at the last moment, court the last change of Senate classes, only paying temporary homage to a few 1/3 of the Senate.
Again, this calculus assumes that the House (incorrectly) chooses only to impeach if the Senate aggress to remove, something which is at odds with the Framers intent: To ensure the House has the power to assert power using only 50%, not 67% of the House members, regardless the speculative wishes of the President or the Senate.
Power wielded against tyrants may or may not be linked with Justice; it is only linked with power: A thing unto itself, unrelated to the law on matters of impeachment; clearly related to the law on matters of Executive war power, Geneva Conventions, and the requirement to secure warrants before engaging in surveillance and intrusions.
Until Congress keeps the impeachment on the table, and faces the abuses of power, it will not accept that in assenting to illegal bills, this Congress has assented to tyranny, and arbitrarily did nothing while we the People have been forced to do the work of Congress: Check abusive power of the US Government, not just the Executive.
We the People have the power to compel Congress to face issues; if it refuse, we may lawfully forward our evidence to prosecutors for purposes of 5 USC 3331 trials, and where needed to war crimes tribunals for their alleged complicity for war crimes, and failure to prevent, stop, or investigate things they had the power to review, but refused because of the unfavorable weather on the Tyrants beach.
The leadership must decide whether it is willing to do what the tyrant does: Arbitrarily use power. If you are not interested in separating the law and the use of power, where appropriate, you are not fit to lead. You are making excuses to assent to tyranny.
Leaders comprehend the difference between the law, abused power, and ministerial duties. Members of Congress do not have an oath to the President; nor are they required to promise to only play nice with tyrants. The oath is only to the Constitution. Despite that oath, Members of Congress do not fear We the People as much as they love groveling, like a sick poodle, before an abusive master.
Leaders would only have access to power if they comprehend the difference between their oath to the Constitution; their ministerial duties to act; and the powers they are delegated to use to check power. The law cannot be a shield for those who confuse power with the law; or those who confuse discretion with mandatory requirements.
All complaints this Congress has made about the President – over his arbitrary abuse of power – apply to the Members of Congress – their arbitrary refusal to not assert their oath fully, and do their moral best to do what We the People have had thrust upon us: The requirement to assert Our Will through the State Proclamations for impeachment.
Leaders who do not comprehend the difference between the law, power, ministerial duties, or oaths cannot be trusted with power to Protect the Constitution. Leaders cannot tie their hands on the law when the law is not relevant on matters of House Impeachment Power. Where the President has shown no regard for the law, the House should show no respect for the President; where the President has defied his oath, the House should assert its oath. Power must be asserted arbitrarily when tyrants refuse to be swayed by all things which should sway tyrants: Defeat on the battlefield, loss of political power, and no prospect of controlling Congress.
Despite these losses, the only thing a tyrant need control is the Mind of We the People. We the People know this tyrant has no plans to stop his abuse of power; and the Congress remains complicity with his defiance of Our Will. We have must arbitrarily assert Our Will through the House Impeachment, If the Congress refuses to cooperate, We the People have options to work with the State Attorney Generals, and State Disciplinary Board to lawfully remove from office Members of Congress and the President who -- despite the prospect of lawful, arbitrary power -- refuse to assert their oath, or awaken from the mass hypnosis which plagues America’s collective consciousness.
We the People have awoken. America’s leaders must decide whether they are for the rule of law and Constitution; or whether they are going to assent to arbitrary abuse of power. The way forward is for the House to arbitrarily impose its will on the President through multiple impeachments; if the House refuses We the People stand read to lawfully intervene, expand the investigation, and forward the evidence to the war crimes prosecutors. Members of Congress, all 535 of them, are allegedly complicit with war crimes, and face the real prospect of lawful execution if they are convicted of failing to prevent when they had the power to do, but have refused: Assert their oath to prevent war crimes. The war crimes tribunal is a separate matter from issues of power – matters of international criminal law.
Until Members of Congress individually comprehend the imminent legal problems they face at the hands of war crimes tribunals, they demonstrate that despite the prospect of the lawful death penalty, they are too thickheaded to be trusted with power. If this is the way forward for Americans, then We the People, while we are working on the State Proclamations, should work in parallel to formally present this New Constitution, and ensure, despite the collective laziness of American leaders, this abuse of power cannot be repeated.
Power cannot be constrained by moral criteria the tyrant ignores. Power, when it is not constrained by the law or a ministerial duty – as is otherwise the case with the President’s use of power on matters of war – cannot be constrained on the basis of a philosophy or code of ethics which a tyrant defies.
Again, where the law is clear – as are the laws of war, Our Constitution, and the restrictions against unreasonable searches and seizures – the President has the ministerial duty to comply with the law, and cannot blindly assert power. His power has been lawfully constrained by the law.
Impeachment power is different: There is no lawful constraint, other than the Will of the People at election time. But where power has been arbitrarily abused, it does not take much to convince We the People that power may be arbitrarily imposed through the House and Impeachment: Nothing else is effective within this Constitution.
Power, when it is not used, is not power, but the smile of poodles. Power, when it is wielded, and inspires a response and compliance with Our Will, should be prudently used. However, power, when it is not effective in taming a tyrant, must be arbitrarily used, frequently, often, without warning, and in conjunction with other lawful methods to contain the tyrant, and lawfully remove them from the political landscape.
We the People have the power. Congress must use the power, or we may lawfully deprive them of their livelihoods. If the abuse of power and illegal assent to the arbitrary use of tyrannical power continues, we leave it to another day to speculate what a war crimes tribunal may impose on Members of Congress as a fitting sanction for their failure to prevent war crimes when they had the power to investigate, take action, review documents, and enforce the law.
Those who refuse to impose lawful consequences on the President through impeachment may be lawfully targeted for removal, prosecution, and punished before a war crimes tribunal. The law and New Constitution has the final say on Members of Congress who defy their oath, make excuses to grovel to tyrants, or illegally remove options from the table in defiance of the Supreme Law. You have no power to decline to assert power; you have the obligation to assert your oath; if you refuse the law, not raw power, shall be used to hold you to the standards that you otherwise refuse to respect: The rule of law.
You shall have an eternal reminder that there is a difference between the law, a ministerial duty and power. This Congress well demonstrates it is not capable of distinguishing the three; its options are left to one: Arbitrarily assert the power of impeachment, or face the prospect that We the People shall lawfully expand our ongoing investigation to lawfully prosecute you for alleged defiance of your oath and complicity with war crimes.
We need not trouble ourselves with what an unlicensed or non-current attorney in West Virginia may or may not say on issues of power; whether impeachment is or is not arbitrary; or whether impeachment should or should not arbitrarily used.
No former prosecutor can credibly argue that the President should be treated as a criminal defendant. He is not, yet. During impeachment he is a Constitutional creature, subject to the check through lawful use of power, not the law. He is not entitled to anything other than the minimal courtesy that might be shown a dog. He only has the right to assert his rights before a court of law. Impeachment is a forum to impose power not recognize rights. We need not concern ourselves with the challenge of the poodles on the DOJ Staff to prepare the President’s defense for a war crimes tribunal.
This President has defied his oath, ignored the law, not assented to the ministerial duties he freely agreed to follow, and he did this well before the pre-text of Sept 2001. This Congress is complicit, and it does not review the gaps in the Title 28 exception reports.
This President is not a defendant during an impeachment. He is a creature of the Constitution who is only responsible to assent to the lawful powers of others. He refuses to reason, and does not respond to the reasonable assertions of power. Arbitrary assertion of power is warranted. This President has abused power. His refusal can only increased the resolve of We the People to assert Our Will, and defy his illegal abuse of power and unlawful assertion of immunity. Without notice, We shall lawfully assert power though the House Impeachment; without notice we shall continue to assert Our Will and Protect the Constitution.
I value the messenger of this report, not the original source. However, the argument must be confronted not because of its merits, but because of its absurd popularity: That Tyrants should only face the non-arbitrary use of power. No. Tyrants must face the eternal prospect that just as they may abuse power, others may lawfully, but arbitrarily assert like power against them with as much speed, volume, and determination they showed with the original and subsequent abuses.
Should impeachment be imposed for impeachment sake?
Why not. Indeed where the executive arbitrary abuses power, We the People retain the right and power to lawfully reciprocate: Impeach for impeachment’s sake. We have the power It may be arbitrarily invoked to Protect the Constitution when a tyrant shows not respect for the Supreme Law: Our Constitution.
Arbitrary tyranny can only be credibly checked, at the ultimate end, when arbitrary, raw power is imposed on them, especially when the refuse to assent to the non-arbitrary combat losses on the only alternative forum: The battlefield. The way forward is for this tyrant to surrender, accept he is subject to the Article III court, and voluntarily admit to his illegal rebellion and insurrection against the US Constitution. There is no negotiation. He shall surrender, or he shall be lawfully destroyed by We the People through the continued assertion of Our Will through sheer might and raw power. The way forward is to lawfully cooperate with state level entities to compel the US Government to protect the US Constitution; or force this American Government to be lawfully transformed to something which removes discretion permitting these abuses.
They wished this.
posted by Constant @ 7:58 PM
<< Home