We the People Shall Assert the Rule of Law

The rule of law can be lawfully imposed from abroad, and at home. It does not die.

When the People see what is possible, they cannot be stopped.

Thank you for your inspiration.

* * *

Jewels,

Thank you for your ethusiasm. My reason for writing is to applaud your energy, and wish you well as you continue with your work. You stated many points well. Others have expressed a desire to conduct an inquiry, review the evidence, and, if warranted, bring impeachment charges. I agree that that option should remain open. In the meantime, regardless Congressional inaction or action, I wanted to express my appreciation for your inspiring words, and call to your attention a few options which you and others may wish to consider. I do not claim to know the outcome, nor what the facts are. I merely write to offer you, someone who appears to be very interested in oversight, a few options you and others may wish to explore.

First, the State Attorney Generals have the power to prosecute a sitting president; second, the States can compel the House leadership to vote up/down on whether to impeach; and third, the German and Italian War crimes prosecutors is expanding the inquiry into war crimes.

Whether the Congress does or does not act is a secondary issue. Once they choose to not act, and it is documented with a refusal to consider a State-level proclamation calling for impeachment, We the People and the States may lawfully work to assert the rule of law. The States may lawfully bring criminal charges against those who provide unlawful support for what is in defiance of the Constitution.

The events before us are unprecedented. Never before has the American government openly defied its oath, rebelled against the Constitution, and incited insurrection against the rule of law. The Congress is complicit in this unlawful rebellion.

* * *

Many were behind the effort to place the state proclamations in the State Legislators, per House Rule 603. These proclamations remain in place, ready to compel the Congress to commit whether they are for or against committing to enforcing the Constitution against the President. Perhaps you and others may be interested in contacting your state officials to follow the example of other legislators and encourage other state officials to decide whether they want to know the facts; or proceed on the assumption of something else.

The appropriate way forward is not to exclude any tool of accountability, especially when the US Attorneys appear to have been blocked from enforcing the law. Impeachment isn't simply a political act, but a secondary option to enforce the law when the Executive refuses to take action against one of his agents. The President's defiance of the DoJ OPR, and refusal to permit open investigations of the misconduct has done two things: Sent a signal he is not interested in enforcing the law; and that impeachment, because of the failure of the enforcement mechanism of the Executive, is the appropriate fall-back strategy.

However, the conclusion that impeachment is off the table, without reviewing the detailed facts, while the Executive refuses to enforce the law isn't simply a political decision, but an issue of whether someone is or is not doing their moral best to protect the Constitution. This is an Article III issue per 5 USC 3331; and a factor when evaluating whether the leadership did or did not do their moral best to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions, as required under the oath to the US Constitution.

Again, there remain other options on the table: State level efforts to call for the House to act; war crimes indictments from abroad; and state level impeachment efforts. Regardless the way forward, the appropriate perspective, in my view, is to continue to press on all fronts, and engage in public oversight of the Congress. [ Discussion ]

* * *

The election analysis continues. Some suggest it was the dissatisfaction of the public against inaction, abuse of power, and distaste and disgust at the abuse which compelled a win or a loss.

The case cannot be made that, if this analysis is true, that the voters could not be similarly inspired to vote against what remains distasteful and disgusting: Inaction in the fact of abuse, and a refusal to do what is required: Enforce the law when others have refused.

We need not wait for inaction. We've had it. While waiting, others' agendas have continued. The way forward is to continue to assert the lawful options, and force the Congress and the Executive to assent to the will of the Constitution, Our Will: Either this Constitution; or a new one which will remove their discretion, and compel consequences for failing to assert their oath, and defend the document from domestic enemies.

* * *

To change, we must know where we are moving from, where we want to go, and what the options are. Change requires fact finding: What has happened. Refusing to investigate the President, and eliminating the option of enforcement sends a clear message: The Congress is not serious about its oath and guarantee to the States -- The guarantee, through a republican form of government, that there remains an enforcement mechanism in place to protect the States right to a republic.

The Federal government has failed. It does not enforce the law; and refuses in both the Article I and Article II branches to punish the leadership. Impeachment, once it starts, would deny the President the ability to pardon.

We can speculate. Perhaps Members of Congress would care to share their interest in a Presidential pardon; and whether they voted for the immunity in the Military Commissions Bill because of a promise of a defense. Or was the sham investigation and call for action linked more with a desire to create the illusion of accountability, with the false reward of power, so long as they did not hold others accountable.

The false charge against the Republicans was that they silently agreed to illegal conduct and couldn't be trusted. The lesson is that the Federal Government cannot be trusted to speak, act, and hold others accountable, despite the oath that removed their discretion.

State-level officials are not beholden to the Federal Government officials, their oath is only to the US Constitution and lawful authority. It remains for the Federal Government to explain why, in the absence of enforcement and disconnected from the written law, it remains legitimate.

The Federal government may deny itself the power or option to act; but the US government does not have the power to prevent or deny the States from doing what the Federal Government refuses to do: Enforce the law, ensure there remains an enforcement mechanism, and that the republican form of government we are entitled to is retained, not simply used as a rallying flag to march the unsuspecting into the enemy's camp.

* * *

Change requires leadership and oversight. We have yet to have a full accounting of what did or did not fail in the House leadership, or the results of the Ethics investigation into the Page Board. Indeed, some have suggested that the House ethics reform bill is flawed.

Not having seen the specific concerns they have with the bill, it remains unclear what basis they are saying something is or is not flawed; or why something is or is not working. A better approach would be to be specific with what is or isn't right so that We the People can understand what the risks are, and how we need to adjust our oversight of Congress. How the leadership may or may not make a case that they are or are not changing is of little interest when the actions, not the speculative promises, achieve the results.

Katrina taught us that a promise of American government is not the same as delivering governance when most needed. Iraq has taught us that unexamined questions and assumptions will, until examined, give us more of what we have: Convoluted solutions. The mess in Iraq is not for the DNC to resolve, especially when it refuses to examine the man most responsible for the mess: The President.

The solution, as with many things, may be up to the whim of chance, the choice of justice, and the combatants. By choosing to ignore the law and Constitution, and removing a forum to resolve the legal issues, this Congress has left foreigners no option but to take this battle to foreign courts.

The DNC will have to explain why they choose to take responsibility for a plan in Iraq that is not theirs; but defy the plan that is ours: the Constitution. The President has successfully convinced some in the DNC leadership that the issue is not him, but something else. Rules 1 - 12 at this link discuss this in detail; sharing the orchestrations of the Republican Mind to manipulate the Congress to act as a lesser department of the Article II branch, not as a co-equal branch of government.

The legacy of Europe after the First World War is a noteworthy analogy. The danger today, as was the case after Germany's defeat, is for leadership to grow complacent, permitting the defeated to return with greater vengeance. Untimely revelations show the defeated have not surrendered, but remain convinced that their cause is just, and that they will succeed, if only they have the right resources. The defeated did not anticipate the news would be revealed before the election, casting doubt on their claims that they wanted to share the truth. If they were interested in sharing the truth, they would have immediately asserted the rule of law, removed themselves, and immediately shared what was an unlawful agreement not to do what they should have done. But enough of Nixon.

* * *

This Administration learned from the defeat of Nixon, how to twist the law and the minds of the American leadership to assent to what is not lawful. We saw it return with the Iran-Contra Affair.

They returned in 1994, and view the 2006 defeat as the needed wakeup call, and needed break, to convince the public that the DNC is unfit to mange the nation. It is a ruse. Their only goal is power, and their ability to abuse it without oversight.

The Republicans have the power in November 2006, and the ability to abuse it -- there is no planned oversight of this President, merely a cast of smokescreens. Where there is no ultimate threat of sanction, the first step is not taken seriously. The Republicans have convinced the Congress that cooperation and compromise on the rule of law and oversight is superior to confrontation and ultimate accountability. Gonzalez said the same of the FISA-NSA violations: That he wanted to avoid a Constitutional confrontation, so he and the President avoided the Constitution, the Congress, and the Courts.

How does the President plan to implement the illegal agenda? He's already shown a habit of violating the law in the face of his own party; it means nothing for him to secretly violate the law with unlawful executive orders, illegal regulations, or other things that will similarly defy the Congress, whether they are his political foe. He has no worry of impeachment. He could commit another Holocaust upon American civilians, and the Congress might likely, as Addington, refuse to change their position on "no impeachment" because to change might mean the original decision was wrong.

The original decision was the oath to the Constitution. They had no option. The wrong decision was to pretend that the lawful options would not be asserted; or that the German war crimes prosecutor would not review evidence.

The States have already initiated legal challenges on the FISA-NSA issue. It only took one state. There are many. It will only take one blogger, but there are many. Only one attorney General needs to be convinced that the Congress, in choosing not to impeach, has defied its oath; and that it is the responsibility of the State-level officials, as with the NSA-FISA violations, to do what the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to do: Hold an alleged criminal to account.

The US Attorneys and American legal system are silent. When the Executive branch and its investigative powers are not exploited, used, and asserted to protect the Constitution, the framers granted the power to the Article I branch to do what should have already been done: Enforce the law.

Change is only a word. Choosing not to assert the law, and say nothing about ultimate accountability for the Chief Law enforcement officer says one thing: The Congress has chosen to joint the illegal rebellion against the Constitution. The Congress shall lose.

* * *

The President finds it appropriate to raid the Congress; yet the Congress says that in a bipartisan manner it will not lawfully reciprocate, as required, under the Constitution, to assert their power. So much for the designed clash of factions. The poodles in the DNC would rather lap the syrup of the Tyrants spilled pancakes than dine on his politically-defeated carcass.

Governance requires oversight. Where one branch of government fails, American leaders tend to rely on the individual actions of the lone victim, and then take praise and credit for what the leadership did not do: Their moral best to assert government power against abusive tyrants.

The ultimate oversight is not Congress, but We the People. Americans can rely on the good graces of the victims of abuse to pushback, assert the law, and compel the American government to assent to the rule of law. Where government fails to do what it agrees, We the People are there to do what we must: Protect our rights, and prevent the abuse of power.

It is irrelevant whether that abuse is by the President, or by a complicit Congress which refuses to do what it should: Review evidence, and if needed, charge the President with a crime. It would be easier if Congress cooperated with the Constitution, but there remain other lawful options.

* * *

Congress chooses to do nothing but lounge on the Tyrant's beach, perhaps taking a swim if the weather cooperates. Not asserting the rule of law is not an option.

The mandate is clear. We the People must review to what extent someone chosen to accept what is not acceptable; review not only the original conduct, but the reasons they have used, agreed to, or have unknowingly accepted; and then consider whether those reasons are or are not credible. Inaction, especially in the vacuum of facts is not acceptable. This choice is no different than those who have supposedly suffered a defeat. They have won a temporary victory.

* * *

The public is able to make adverse judgments. We have other options. If the US Congress will not do what it should, then We the People may lawfully compel them through a New Constitution which will remove discretion.

An oath taken has one goal: To eliminate the option; and to bind the oath-taker to do something they may not be inclined to take. It appears despite (1) The Constitutional requirement; and (b) the oath to act, the Congressional leadership has chosen to not only defy the oath, but fail to fully protect the Constitution, especially when the Executive violations have undermined it.

It remains to be explained why anyone who has taken an oath to do something, and has seen this level of abuse and defiance of the law, would not consider the possibility that the public could be persuaded to support a review of the President. There are many questions; until those questions about one man can be answered using a simple oversight system, why should we believe that something more difficult related to two or more people in the Executive Branch or on foreign shores can or cannot be adequately overseen.

* * *

I do not have the answer; many others have discussed a remedy. It appears as though there is a solution. Perhaps you may be interested in considering another approach. The key isn't to attempt what has failed, or been denied; but to remind the leadership that We the People may deny them the powers they refuse to use; and can compel new institutions to protect what some refuse to protect, as they promise. Power not used can be revoked; and power abused can be the basis to punish.

Despite promises and obligations to the contrary, when a system of checks and balances fails to check and remains imbalanced, We the People may lawfully restructure what the government does not wish to respect: Our Will. When oversight has failed on one, it cannot credibly be asserted as plausible for more than one.

* * *

I look forward to your continued contributions, and am confident that you will accept my remarks in the spirit that they are intended: To remind you that your concerns are valid, noticed, and deserve attention. In that spirit, please accept my invitation to comment on a New Constitution Archive, and I look forward to your feedback and comments. You may find the following comments and questions helpful, but by all means I am interested in your views, good or bad, as to whether the proposed solution in this New Constitution might address the decision of this Congress and President to jointly refuse to do what they promised to God, and defy the law and their oath as they promised We the People.

Thank you for your consideration and I respectfully ask that you continue to assert your voice, especially if you may disagree with anything that I have said. Your views, even as an adversary, might guide others to correct what we have missed; and improve upon what is already inspiring: The United States Constitution. I look forward to your thoughts and consideration. Good luck, and know that you are not alone in your interest in asserting the rule of law, protecting this Constitution, and ensuring it remains a viable document through which we and future generations may enjoy and thrive.