New Constitution Screening An Illegal Bill

The Congress is working on the FISA bill. It still has problems. This note illustrates how a New Constitution might effectively restructure a flawed bill.

* * *

The House passed an unconstitutional FISA bill granting retroactively immunity for illegal activity after 2001. This is an exclusive judicial power and not lawful in that it attempts to affect ongoing litigation.

This note does not hope to comment exclusively on the defects of the bill but highlight how this Constitutional system fails as illustrated by this bill; and how a New Constitution might effectively trash, ignore, or not permit illegal bills like the House FISA bill.

* * *

There are three levels of the analysis: (1) What We the People might reasonably expect of government under this Constitution; (2) What this FISA bill does, and how it contrasts with this reasonable expectations; and (3) How a New Constitution might remedy the defects in the current US government institutions and prevent a bill like this from being considered.

Overall, the problem with the US Constitution is that it permits illegal activity to blossom, flourish, and spread before effective circuit breakers are contemplated much less used. Bluntly, it’s outrageous that Members of Congress with this FISA bill have effectively compelled We the People to start the debate from square one: Why we do or do not need a Constitution; and why retroactive grants of immunity are or are not possible. The House FISA bill illustrates a common problem with Members of Congress: They treat the Constitution as a debatable point to negotiate, not something that must be protected. As enacted, the US Constitution throws the burden on We the People to clan up the mess, and gradually chip away at the unlawful bill. The appropriate route is for the Government to prove the bill is Constitutional, and then permit consideration.

A New Constitution would effectively prevent the illegal bill from ever entering the political arena. The Consulars would (shocked, shocked) read the bill, and certify that the clauses were constitutional. The present approach is the opposite: The Congress passes an illegal bill, and We the People have to spend money undoing the mess Congress has made.

* * *

Ideally, a system of governance would improve things. The leadership would enact things that solve problems, and inspire confidence in the rule of law. Before enacting legislation, there would be fact finding, and a requirement to conduct oversight and have public input before passing the bill.

This Congress shows contempt for the existing requirements under FISA. Rather than hold violators to account, they’ve effectively rewarded their violations, granted them immunity, and passed the legislation without conducting credible investigations.

The New Constitution addresses these problems. Rather than permitting Congress pass illegal bills, and leaving We the People to clean up the mess, the Consulars would review the specific clauses and only permit the bill to go into Committee Debate if the clauses were Constitutional. Also, once the Congress approves the bill, the Consulars would then interface with the public, review their inputs, and ensure the public’s concerns were addressed.

* * *

Ideally, the Congress acts as the people’s house. In practice, the congress has turned into an Executive agency, rubber stamping illegal presidential conduct, and refusing to investigate impeachable offenses.

The FISA bill does the opposite. Rather than hold anyone to account for violating FISA, the bill creates new standards of reporting which the Attorney General has already ignored.

A New Constitution would, through the fourth branch of government, independently investigate what the President, Congress, and Committee Chairmen reuse to do – review the details of the DOJ OPR blocked investigation; the details of which DoJ Staff counsel knew of the illegal NSA activity; and the basis for awarding award fees to contractors who were allegedly violating the law.

A New Constitution would also recognize the States’ right to assert their oath, and lawfully target the President and Members of Congress with prosecution and impeachment. The Current Constitution, even if enforced, does not recognize the States’ inherent right to trump the spreading US government rebellion; the New Constitution would make this right and power a firmly established right that need not be proven, but is a assumption and power they are recognized to eternally hold without need for explanation, excuses, or justification.

* * *

Ideally, Members of Congress would only do things that are consistent with the rule of law, comply with the Constitution, and put into effect lawful things. This FISA bill does the opposite: It enacts illegal language that retroactively sends a clear message: The original Congressional intent of the FISA bill is trumped by criminals; and the Congress is not interested in enforcing the violations.

A New Constitution would do the opposite: Impose swift penalties on Members of Congress, especially the Consulars, when they permit an illegal, unconstitutional bill to enter the debate. It is not the job of We the People to clean up the mess this Government makes; rather, it is the job of the Government to ensure the mess it creates is clean, before it leaves government.

* * *

Ideally, a system of government would include an enforcement mechanism. The framer included this as a State Right: The Stages were guaranteed the right to a republican form of government – one that includes an enforcement mechanism.

This FISA bill doesn’t do that: IT crates new guidelines, reporting standards, dates, and other things for the Attorney General to do; yet, the Attorney General has already violated the reporting requirements. Creating new reporting requirements for him to violate doesn’t’ solve the legitimacy problem, but endorses it.

A New Constitution would do the opposite: It would give the States the power to prosecute the Attorney General when he violated the law the first time; and firmly establish the power of the investigation of his original violations as a requirement on the 4th branch. Congress would not have exclusive power to investigate; nor would the Executive have the option to block the investigation.

* * *

In theory, prudent government is linked with a simple notion of reality. When someone purposes a solution, it is linked with facts, fact finding, and a credible understanding of the problem. IN theory, the power of the legislature is to conduct this inquiry, and then through their reasoned debate, they arrive at truth: Out comes improvement.

The FISA bill belies this. There’s been no fact finding, nor has the Attorney General been held to account for what went wrong; what he violated; or why the procedures were ignored. It makes little sense to argue for new requirements, when the Congress has yet to comprehend, much less ask the President, why he thought it appropriate to violate the law. We’ll leave it to another day, perhaps another century, for American leaders to consider asking this President a question.

A New Constitution would remove the discretion of the Congress to ignore impeachable offenses; and impose on them an obligation to confront the issue. Where the Congress refuses to act, its members could lawfully be prosecuted for failing to review evidence. When the Members of Congress, outside a power non-delegated to the Congress, choose to pretend they have no obligation to do something, the New Constitution would be there to remind them: When you refuse to exercise your investigation power, you are stripped of that power; when you refuse to honor your private promises to act, you no longer have the discretion to privately promise.

The New Constitution would strip the Members of Congress the discretion to hold private meetings. All Members of Congress, like any judicial officer when engaging in official business, would be required to conduct their affairs in open, subject to public observation, oversight, and review. The Members of Congress like Judicial Officers, when they have private meetings, cannot discuss matters related pending litigation or official business, or pending matters. Official business is on the record; or it is not official. Members of Congress would also be subject to prosecution for failing to assert their oath; and like the President impeachable, but also by the State Legislatures.

* * *

Ideally, under a credible system of governance, the legislative branch would not exercise judicial powers. This government does not distinguish, much less enforce, that standard. The FISA bill illegally permits Members of Congress to grant pardons, immunity, and relieve criminals of punishment; yet this power only belongs to the Judiciary. Further, the FISA bill illegally permits the Congress to waive reporting requirements that the Constitution does not permit: The President cannot rely on the Attorney General to decide when or if the warrant requirements can be waived; only a Judge can decide if the evidence has or has not been lawfully obtained.

The FISA bills’s problem is that it unreasonably shifts the burden of proof from the government to the victim or target of the abuse. This does little to correct the flaws of the bill, especially when the President hides the illegal abuse, and Congress refuses to challenge the illegal conduct with an impeachment inquiry. It is not appropriate for the targets of abuse to have to prove that the abuse was illegal; it should be the burden of the government to prove that it always complied with the law.

A New Constitution would remind the government that in all matters, the burden of proof lies with the Government: TO demonstrate that the bill is legal and Constitutional; and to demonstrate that the evidence is lawfully obtained. A New Constitution would permit We the People, when we are abused, to lawfully – under judicial supervision – impose like abuse on others. If they violate our right to privacy, we my in a like manner disclose personal information similarly embarrassing.

The problem with the existing system is the meaningless consequences for abuse of power. At every turn, government officials secretly engage in abuse, call it something else, hide evidence, then target the victims to silence them about the abuse. We need only look at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The way forward is to lawfully recognize the right of all people – including foreigners, immigrants, naturalized citizens and citizens – to lawfully assert their rights without fear or favor when they are illegally detained, abused, or otherwise threatened by US Government officials.

US Government officials, especially arrogant US Attorneys, like to pretend that after being abused, a victim will have an impossible ordeal in proving abuse. The way forward is to shift the burden of proof, and make the US Government prove that the conduct was appropriate; and that the laws were followed. If the Government fails to prove its conduct was lawful, the public is presumed to have made an accurate report of the abuse.

It is arrogant for the US Government to pretend its officials are something to be respected, while the supervisors in the FBI show they are incompetent and devoid of reasonable grounds of respect. The way forward is to shift the burden from We the People to the government: Make the government constantly be subject to random audits by a fourth branch. Where the abuses were war crimes, the 4th Branch would have the lawful right, power, and legal authority to directly engage in combat operations to lawfully subdue combatant commanders engage din illegal warfare. This activity would be subject to court oversight.

* * *

Ideally, a credible system of governance, when it has a ministerial duty on someone to do something, that system will enforce that requirement.

The FISA bill does the opposite: Despite failing to comply with the law, the President is given the opportunity to define situation where he can say he need not comply; but that he can notify the Congressional leadership in a discretionary manner what he has or has not done.

A credible system would impose a requirement; and punish the President in a timely manner while he remains in office. Presidents are not immune to the law; they cannot be granted absolute immunity; nor can they have their powers presumed to be lawful when the results are war crimes.

The New Constitution would forever hold the President subject to multiple levels of oversight. He would not have the discretion to do things; he would not be allowed to hide. The President would not exist.

Rather, there would be three Executives, one for foreign affairs, one for domestic affairs, and a third for Combat Operations. All bills related to these three distinct areas would be separate; the executives would not have the discretion to exercise any powers not delegated. Where there were disputes, the Judiciary would act as a mediator.

Again, the Executive in charge of Combat operations would have to work with the Executive in charge of domestic affairs – their objectives would clash; and the only way they could agree is if they jointly agreed to do something, while hiding this from the fourth branch, Congress, and the Judiciary. In effect, the executives are in conflict by design, and the only way to resolve the issue is to have an agreement, not silent consent.

The New Constitution would also permit and make it a federally protected right of all people to make any comment about any government officials with the presumption that that comment is an opinion. The open media would be rewarded for working with the 4th branch; and threats against the Media would be viewed as serious abuses of government power. Media officials at any time would have the opportunity to meet in secret with the4 Consulars and discuss evidence, findings, and conclusions; the Consulars would have the power to subpoena anyone, and compel evidence before the 4th Branch. Whether the matter was a criminal matter is irrelevant: The Consulars have the ultimate say on what is or is not acceptable: They are the guardians of the Constitution, and their oath is only to the Document, not to any party, branch, or ideology. They are experts in auditing, law enforcement, intelligence, the law; and they are beholden to no one, except the Constitution and We the People.

* * *

The flaws with the FISA bill are instructive of what has failed in American governance; and what institutional reforms are possible to address these. American governance, as it is practiced, is not a model that warrants serious world consideration. The current system permits illegal abuse of power; does not mandate investigations; allows bills to be passed without fact finding; and despite clear Constitutional prohibitions, We the People are forced to argue the law with each bill, not compel the legislatures to prove the bill is lawful before enactment.

The President is the Commander in Chief. He is in charge of Iraq. Let him suffer the legal consequences for his recklessness. This problem is not for Congress to solve; it is one for Congress to investigate. The poodles in the DNC have incorrectly been induced to believe that fact finding might jeopardize their chances to win the White House. Indeed, failing to find facts may reward them a chance to stay at the Federal Penitentiary for 5 USC 3331 violations.

A New Constitution would remind the Executive that he shares the office with two others, easily removable, and subject to oversight by the Senate, whose powers will have largely been watered down by the Consulars and Article 4 investigative branch. The Senators’ collective malfeasance and refusal to protect the Constitution means under a New Constitution they no longer have the power of discretion; they have the responsibility of oversight. Where the Senators were free to wander the halls of the Congress mumbling to themselves about what may or may not have happened to them while they were held as a prisoner, they now have the duty to put that experience into effect; otherwise, they do not have the credibility to argue they have a solution, merely a double standard. Where the Geneva conventions prohibit abuse, no Senator or prospective Presidential candidate can suggest immunity for that abuse is lawful. Rather, under a New Constitution, Investigative branch combatant commanders, when faced with war crimes, would have the lawful power to seize Members of Congress who refused to prevent war crimes.

* * *

War is a serious thing. Americans have lightly considered the legal responsibility and obligations attached with the post 2001 decisions. Once combat operations were selected as the preferred method to combat a small group of thugs, the laws of combat, not thuggery apply.

A New Constitution would grant wide powers to the States to lawfully engage in combat operations against the US Government when the US Government waged illegal war against the citizenry. Ideally, these issues should be resolved before the Judiciary. In times like these, where the Congress and President jointly ignore the law and defy the courts, and the courts are illegally kept out of the oversight, there would be other branches of the Government that would have the power to force assent to the rule of law.

In the unlikely event that the three executives dies not assent to the rule of law; or the Congress – like this one – absurdly argues that fact finding is not required, and war crimes can continue; and the Judiciary is denied a role to review the legal matters, ten We the People would have the recognized right under the New Constitution to assert our rights, protect the Constitution, and form alliances to ensure the US Government assented to the laws of war. Ideally, the threat of the 4th Branch Combatant Commanders would prevent the abuse; but if that were to fail, foreign fighters and US citizens would be permitted – if they exhausted all judicial options – to lawfully remove the alleged war criminals from office, submit them to The Hague for trial, and then correct the defects in the Constitution.

This arrogant American government, despite the assertion of freedom and rule of law in Iraq and Afghanistan, has demonstrated nor given either; and left the American public in a worse position relative to the Constitution, freedom, and security. The way forward is to examine what has gone wrong, and if the above options are not credible, formulate something else that will prevent these abuses from recurring.

You will find that the Congress, in its laziness to proffer excuses to justify inaction, will pretend that the Party should be trusted, despite the leadership being disconnected from the Will of the House of Representatives, much less attached to We the People.

* * *

It is dangerous when, despite (1) an oath; (2) a Constitution; and (3) voter input and oversight, the US government cannot be trusted to do what is required: Protect the Constitution, investigate facts, and make reasonable legislation to solve problems.

It doesn’t matter what excuses the majority or minority party gives. They have failed. The US government, despite a written constitution, might has well be relying on unwritten rules, changing at the whim of those who are inconvenienced by facts, more loyal to Presidential aspirations, or willing to stand like a stalking horse roaming in search of new excuses to hide reality.

Leaders plan based on reality; they do not aspire for power simply to avoid plans; nor spire for power to ignore reality. The reckless leaders, those most morally corrupt, and devoid of legal foundation, will assert they are for the rule of law, but not hold the leadership to account for those violations; nor will they ensure the leadership is asked but one question as to why there was or was not a violation.

The way forward is to remind the American Presidential candidates they are on thin ice: They have the option to run for office, and make non-sense plans; or they can be President based on plans that work. The Members of Congress who aspire for Presidential aspirations should carefully consider what has gone wrong; what is required to remedy the defects; and outline a better solution. Where there is no examination, the assertion that things are “just fine” is absurd.

Anyone is free to devise a new System. The problem the elected officials have is that they are expressly denied the power to unilaterally change what is clearly promulgated in the Constitution -- Requirements. Where the Constitution delegates to the House of Representatives the solve power to impeach, that power is only to the legislative body, not to the toadie Speaker or contemptible Chairmen who pretend that they speak for the body. The House of Representatives has defied this speaker; they should be given a chance to vote on the issues of impeachment: Do they want to look at the facts; or do they want to assert the facts. This President has asserted false facts, and we have real defeats.

It would be appropriate for the speaker to reconsider her decision not to review facts. She has no power to deny the House this debate; and a New Constitution shall deny her the power to expect anyone to assent to her folly.

* * *

The Constitution is the guide for the US government to follow and respect, not to selectively change and twist to meet their Presidential ambitions, or wave as a distraction from a Senator who wishes to avoid something inconvenient. The truth is inconvenient when it is avoided, not when it is confronted. Had the Senator been willing to ask the simple questions even a bungling blogger asked, it would have been clear that the basis for war in Iraq was abused on dubious assertions. Congress did not have to grant absolute power to wage illegal war; it could have conditioned the combat upon a fair showing of something, then withdraw the funds if there was fraud, war crimes, or illegal warfare.

Indeed, the good Senator appears to have not done what she should have; and done what she could arguably be called criminal: Assenting to illegal warfare; and failing to prevent the illegal activity; nor stopping what was not appropriation, nor lawful: Funding for what was not there.

As with the FISA and Iraq plans, the US Congress assented to assertions, without exploring the facts. It was known well before the first shots were fired that the President was reckless, twisting the facts, and abusing power. A fair lady spoke before th3 entire DNC speaking of what was possible; the Senate has no excuses. You were warned, fairly, openly, on the record.

The issue becomes one for the war crimes prosecutor to review: To what extent were Members of Congress complicit in war crimes; failed to do what they should; and reckless in not reviewing the illegal activity. You have the power to acct; you are not empowered to act, but lead, and solve problems.

* * *

The States retain the legal right to lawfully prosecute Members of Congress and the President for illegal conduct; threats to eh Constitution; and failures to ensure there is a republican form of government with an enforcement mechanism.

No enforcement mechanism exists when the Congress knows the President is blocking the DOJ OPR; the US Attorneys have evidence of war crimes, but do nothing; and the Congress refuses to do what the Executive will not – hold the leadership to account for war crimes, illegal conduct, and other high crimes. You are either on the side of the Constitution, willing to face facts, and making plans to fix what has failed; or you are the problem, and part of what must be lawfully cleaned up.

The way forward is for the Good senator and Congressman to meet soon with your Poodle Speaker, and contemplate your problem: You have jointly agreed to allegedly not do what you should; but ask that We the People embrace the illusion of the stalking horse, while nothing is done, then leap to the head of the line to claim victory.

That may happen, or it may not. 2008 is a long time from now. Especially when you have to go through the long hard slog of public oversight. What is it this week: The Good Prosecutor in Germany is reviewing the Rumsfeld files; will it turn to the speaker, then the Senator, and the Congressman? She has an address. She has an e-mail. She knows ho to turn on a computer. Chances are very good she has the IP numbers for the e-mail.

If you want to claim to be a leader, then lead, don’t point to who might help you out while you ignore the source of your ultimate assistance: The Constitution. You bring discredit upon your legal profession, service to the United States, and ultimately your personal honor. To which, it is clear, you put second, behind the wavering yap of a very spunky poodle.

* * *

The error was to desire power more than you desire your Constitution. You may get neither, but something far worse: A fully informed citizenry, capable of having an informed, likely debate to which the Congress has been lawfully DENIED the power to participate.

Can anyone wonder why the good citizens of Palestine stand on their roof tops? It is because they know the power of the people to defy abuse. How many bloggers have been inspired by the likes of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson to believe that something was possible; and realize that something better was reasonable?

American combat forces, even if called into the service of the Untied Sates, have shown their incompetence. It is unlikely that a poodle’s yapping friend will comprehend what is possible, so long has he is more concerned with power than his oath.

No other nation should aspire to hold the United Stats or its government with any reverence. There is no reason to desire this abysmal system which fails, gets rewarded, and then fails again. There are options. The Iraqi insurgents know they value freedom more than they do illegal abuse. Make the case that Americans, when confronted with the same choice, would grovel like a yapping dog, than standard up. Members of Congress prefer to yap, not lead. They bring contempt to the chamber where it is most appropriate: To the well, where the yapping dogs are silent, fearful to face facts; wavering in their commitment to the Constitution; well demonstrating their noodle-like backbone. “Oh, cower before the tyrant, and ye shall be rewarded.”

Have your tyranny. We have a Constitution, and a New One. You have no power to choose; we have the power to lawfully impose. Shall you like to have more demonstrations of your incompetence, poor choices, defective leadership, and arguably illegal rebellion. Your oath means nothing; your conclusions are unsound; and your thinking merely the fruit of playful childlike wonder.

We the People have offered you the choice: The Rule of law; or the rule of man. You have illegally chosen the latter, defied the first, and pretended you are concerned with our ideas. You are only concerned with power. To that, you can be stripped, and treated like the yapping dog you are. Go play in your sand box, and don’t’ forget to clean up after yourself. The alligators of tyranny like to gobble little dogs, then do with them as they will.

* * *

The way forward is for We the People to comprehend we have more in common with other Americans than the leadership of either Party. The leaders have betrayed the members of both parties; they concern is not for our future, but their political power.

Let them have their choice. They are free to pretend they are leaders. The real leaders will be those who dare to say what is here: The truth is not known; the facts are unclear; and the plans going forward are dubious. No Presidential candidate may credibly claim they have a vision, when they refuse to see; nor may they claim they have a plan, when they are unable to face what has failed.

The American leadership, until it faces the mess in the oval office, will incorporate that mess as their own. We the People are not responsible for your reckless choices; themes you embrace, is yours, not ours. You defy your oath; your job is to defend yourself, not ask others to support your indefensible malfeasance.

* * *

Real leaders will identify what is solvable, reviving the system of governance. Not this leadership. They do the opposite.

Real leaders would outline a range of lessons which were solvable with reforms, changes, and other modernizations – so long as those plans were linked with a careful understanding of what this President did. Not hits leadership. This President is immune to the law, oversight, accountability, and fact finding. You might as well make him immune to reality. Oh, wait, he already is: The disaster in Iraq isn’t really a defeat, it’s a victory. (Sarcasm)

Leaders would show the way, inspire Americans to believe that the plans are linked with what should b solved; not simply linked with a desire for power. IT remains to be explained how anyone can claim to be a Presidential candidate, but they point to a legacy which ignores the laws and facts; and crate plans based on transitory examinations, rather than robust inquiry. The way forward is to link the solutions with what is wrong; not impose a solution without examining what has failed.

Leaders should show how the structural system would be addressed with the proposed remedy. A bill, solution, or plan would be linked with inquiry, not a decision to ignore. What is the basis for the appropriation if there are no facts; how can the plan be credible if it is not linked with inquiry? If you do not have an interest in using the power We the People have delegated, you are not fit for more power, but more oversight.

You cannot self-check; and you refuse to check others. It remains uncertain what you are doing, other than dancing before the crowd, acting as a block to those who choose to abuse the docile and trusting. We the People have no reason to trust either set of leaders in either party; they defy their oaths, reward inaction, reuse to face facts, and call defeat and incompetence something unworthy of examination. They are doomed to repeat it. They insult themselves more when they mockingly suggest they are interested in or progress; only to turn around and ignore our reports.

To suggest to anyone that you are with us, only to abandon your oath is meaningless drive. To suggest that you are with our common agenda, only to undermine the agenda with other loyalties is telling. You are the so-called expert, yet it is We the People who must be more attuned to your oath that you: Vigilance means observing. Your idea of observing is standing mesmerized at what may happen in 2008; ignoring what has happened 2001-2006. It is 2006, not 2008.You insult your good name, or what little remains of it, when you use our needed oversight as false shock, then the basis to rebuke those who must oversee the negligent.

Who are your allies; can they be trusted; or have they deceived others. Look at the legacy of this leadership: Look closely who they have around them. Is there a common pattern of betrayal; abuse; and false statements.

Does the leadership have a tendency to embrace those who cannot actually do what they say; or those who assert an ability they cannot meet. To what extent has the leadership been deluded to accept that some are capable, when that competence has only been achieved by making others look less competence. That is not competence, but trickery.

When left to their own devices, and taken to their logical conclusions, does the leadership surround itself with people who are able to solve problems; or do they merely scream that noting is being done, only to find the problem they say exists is an illusion,

Consider the words of the leaders: Do they have the ability to plan, allocate resources, inspire confidence; or is that confidence based on a belief in what is not delivered; and the false claim of power, where there is only incompetence.

If you claim to be an expert, then do not ask the non-experts for advice; if you claim to offer a solution, and that plan is implemented, do not deride those who challenge your defiance of what you compelled others to assent.

When you claim to be an expert, use your skills; do not use your power to induce others to believe you have something, only to fall down and fail to provide what you say you can do. Your promise of power and ability means nothing when the misinformed are more knowledgeable; and the insecure are more resolute; the skittish more focused; and the wandering more inspired.

You disgrace your good name when you inspire the world to believe in false things; then deride others for their belief in what they have only come to understand is false: The illusion of accountability, and the intent to do the same as those you deride – to move on a false agenda; to move without regard to your word.

Those who say they have power, but refuse or cannot use it, have no real power. Those who suggest they have a skill or talent take demand credit, but refuse to offer what they have promised, are not worthy of acclaim for that talent. Those who put themselves above others by tearing other down may not credibly claim they are worthy of emulation, merely derision.

When you say something, and plan for that result, you have an obligation to stop doing what you are not longer willing to do. If your oath, and your contract with that oath, are not something that you are willing to stand by, then you should let others take your place and let them stand by the document you twist as much as those you accuse the same.

A difficult leader is one who abuses power; an impossible leader is one who refuses to stop abusing power despite there being no one else left to abuse. Tyrants eventually run out of dupes to destroy; the dupes are not destroyable, they are We the People.

* * *

The losses at the ballot box have been insufficient to change the RNC conduct; and the victory has not compelled the DNC to do better. The same abuses which propelled one to power, remain.

Neither party has woken up to the 2006 election. One has power, but a false impression that it can play games with power; one lost power, with the false impression that it can return to continue. Neither outcome is certain, especially when We the People have options.

There is no credible excuse. Neither party can shift attention to a war or an election; the focus should be on the man: The oval office clerk who remains immune to oversight by either party. The leadership has jointly agreed, in advance without authorization, that it is preferable to do nothing than enforce the law, find facts, or make prudent plans. That is no leadership, but more of the same that is not change; but more of the abuse of power.

The oath, statues, Constitution, and backlash have been insufficient to change either leader. We can only conclude that their concern with any is a concern for none. The RNC cannot credible argue it has a better or worse candidate than the DNC; neither candidate is interested in reality, nor the facts as they are in 2006. The problem, still unexamined, is the system which permitted this reckless toad in the oval office to claim power, have no challenged, and wage illegal war, then defy his oath and Constitution. The greater crime is, despite the power to stop him, both parties refused to go to the well to charge the man with a crime.

___ Why would anyone want to be a Member of Congress if “the truth” might result in a loss of power?

___ How does anyone claim that they are of any value to the law when “the truth” – something supposedly related to the law – is not worthy of examination for a single man?

___ Who among us is claiming that their political objectives in 2008 might be compromised by the fact finding: The American leadership – they are not leaders, but allegedly complicity with war crimes, rebellion, and insurrection against the Constitution.

___ Would it not be better to change the Presidential objective, than change the decision to review the criminal conduct: Indeed.

___ Who is putting political agendas above the law: Both parties.

* * *

Summary

We have shown that the New Constitution, when it is applied to the FISA bill, would prevent the abuses of power more than the current failed system of governance. The flaws of the FISA bill have been loosely defined in terms of what a New Constitution might remedy; the comparison is favorable for the Changes, not for what fails.

A New Constitution solves what supports the flawed aspects of legislative abuse.

The way forwards is to remind government that We the People have options; whether the US government wants to be part of the solution, or remain the problem, is of little concern. Change is on the way.

The leadership is not credible when it claims it has a vision, but the plans are not linked with facts. They way forward is to examine what has failed, then remedy the problem; not talk about a vision, but ignore the needed solutions.

Where the US government ignores what has gone wrong, and keeps one man above the law, the US government cannot credibly claim its moral standing is right; or that its combat objectives in Iraq deserve anything but a legal challenge before The Hague. Unlawful war is not linked with a single person, but with a government that reuses to stop what it had the power to stop; and with those who refuse to enforce the law when the enforcement systems are thwarted.

There is a solution. There is a way forward. The US Government is the problem; and its Members of Congress and Presidential candidates jointly agree to put their personal ambition for power above their 5 USC 3331 oath. They are not interested in facts, merely in perpetuating a system that permits abuses. We the People have options.

The US cannot credibly inspire other nations when it fails to inspire within its leadership a respect for the law. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the American government chooses to wage illegal combat operations against its citizens, We the People retain the inherent right to lawfully replace that abusive government. This government is illegally engaging in an unlawful rebellion against the Constitution; and has inspired in the leadership contempt for the rule of law. The insurrection is not lawful. Congress and the President have illegally agreed to defy their oaths, and assert the rule of lawlessness. We the People have lawful options.

No one should be impressed by a system or a leadership which sticks with what fails. The way forward is for We the People to call the American government what it is: Tyranny. It has abused our trust, jointly betrayed the decent faith all Americans had in the party leadership; and jointly condemned the membership to political and legal losses. We the People have options.

* * *

We the People shall recognize our inherent, Constitutionally protected rights with a New Constitution

To be free of illegal, constitutional abuse

To have laws enforced with reasonable oversight

To compel government to respect the Constitution without fear

To compel through lawful use of legal and military power to stop illegal warfare, or conduct outside their sphere of delegated spheres

To compel the Government to prove at all times that it is legitimate, that the evidence is real, and the power is lawful

To have the Constitution preserved

To have meaningful consequences for passing illegal bills, ignoring the law, or not protect the Constitution

To lawfully compel Members of Congress to assert their oath; or face lawful sanctions by State powers

* * *

Bill should be read before being passed.

When the President gets an illegal bill, he violates his oath when he signs the bill; or he enforces what is not legal.

Congress ha not power to grant immunity to punishment – this is only something the President can do with a pardon; but has no effect on matters of international war crimes.

The Congress refuses to examine the linkage between the war crimes, illegal FISA abuses, and the other illegal conduct. One is not different; it is part of a larger pattern of war crimes. There is no statue of limitations.

Congress cannot credible claim it is engaging in oversight when it refuses to examine facts. Do not ask anyone to support you when your choice is not supportable.

We the People do not have a choice between one set of rebels or the other; our Choices is between this Constitution and a New Constitution.

* * *

The American government is creating absolute rubbish for the public to clean up. Enough! Members of Congress shall be lawfully targeted for 5 SUC 3331 violations. This bill spews forth more non-sense illegal language; was passed without adequate fact finding; and has been illegally launched into the public domain for the public to resolve.

Indeed, this problem of American governance is one the Congress and President are incapable of resolving: They are the problem. To resolve it would mean a change to something other than what they have – the joint agreement to abuse power, engage in rebellion against the Constitution, and not protect the Constitution from their peers who have illegally continued an insurrection against the rule of law.

American governance, as measured by this bill, is an example of why there must be a body that reads the bill, and reviews whether the language is or is not Constitutional. If the bill is acceptable, then it may be voted on; until it is free from offending language, it cannot be discussed or approved. The right to debate is one that We the People have delegated to the Congress; it is not a right, it is a privilege. We the People may restructure the government to prevent Members of Congress from discussing an issue in either public or private. You have been denied the right to discuss in private, what you have abused in private.

Until this Congress is held accountable for its refusal to investigate the President, We the People should expect more betrayals. The US government is not legitimate. Its Members of Congress defy their oath. We need an independent review of the system; but the Congress proves it is neither independent, nor wiling to review a single person. Presidents can only lead when they build solutions which address what is failing; not when they hide what has failed under the guise of change.

The FISA bill should be rejected as it stands; and cannot be discussed until there is fact finding on the President’s impeachable offenses. If the Congress lazily “gets around to” reviewing the President’s conduct, perhaps their oath and system of governance might be something worthy of consideration, not emulation. Until Congress reviews the facts of one man, no President or Candidate can credibly claim they have a vision for America. We the People have the vision, and it does not include doing more of the same.

We the People can lawfully impose change. Congress has no power to resist. We the People are the source of all power, and may lawfully compel this Congress to end its illegal insurrection and rebellion against Our Will.

They wished this.