Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Clash of Factions Unrelated to Popularity

This builds on these comments

* * *

Curious how a “lack of popularity” on issues of taxes is considered irrelevant for Congress; but when it comes to issues of prosecuting the President for war crimes, Congress is concerned with populism. When Congress makes taxes contingent upon “popularity,” it will have credibly shown that the President’s conduct and impeachment should be measured by popularity.

Whether something is or is not legal is secondary to the bigger problem: Know illegal activity prior to Sept 2001 was not been challenged. The “national interests” argument fails when the illegal activity started before the event invoking a “new national interest” – illegal defiance of the Constitution. National interests cannot outweigh the law when the event invoking that interest had not occurred.

Newsflash: Despite Democrats winning the popular vote, DNC in Congress doesn’t believe it has a mandate to assert power. Due to lack of popularity, we the People are on vacation – writing a New Constitution -- until Congress awakens to its duties.

* * * *

The idea of an election is to recognize the elected-leadership has the majority support. The DNC management of the impeachment question asks that we pretend elections are something else – that the majority, despite speaking, didn’t speak and isn’t a majority.

Consider the approach Conyers and Pelosi have taken on the impeachment question. Rather than independently asserting their oath and act, they’re reported as waiting for popular support.

___ You mean winning an election isn’t popular support?

___ Are you saying that despite taking an oath to do what you what might not voluntarily do – whatever that might be – you want a third trigger to your actions?

In theory, they should do what should be done. Consider the four triggers that Conyers, Pelosi, and the DNC are asking for:

1. Trigger One: Doing what should be done – “Please remind us”
2. Trigger Two: The election – “Please work to support us”
3. Trigger Three: The oath of office – “Please make us promise”
4. Trigger Four: The popular support – “Please work to remind us of what we promised”

In practice, the oath of office, or trigger three, is the only legal foundation anyone needs. The oath is designed to bind people to do things that they would normally not volunteer to do.

Note Trigger Four is a culmination of all previous triggers: Essentially duplicating all other requirements to act, and shifting the responsibility for governance back to the People: Implicitly, “If you don’t’ remind us of what we’re supposed to do, then it’s your job to do our job.”

* * *

It is unacceptable that Conyers and Pelosi have shifted the burden for whether there is or is not impeachment onto We the People in the form of requiring popular support reach an unspecified level.

Popular support, as Conyers and Pelosi apparently are communicating, are far removed from the leadership’s essential purpose for being in power: To assert power independently out of an interest to clash one faction against all others.

It is reasonable to not require Four Triggers for Pelosi and Conyers to awaken to their duties, move with all due speed, and prosecute the President before Congress.

* * *

I take great exception to the DNC leadership, including Conyers and Pelosi, suggesting that a legal duty – of asserting the oath, and charging anyone with a crime – is a power that can only be exercised if an unspecified, vague, and irrelevant standard is or is not met.

Suggesting that “impeachment is not popular” is irrelevant. Accountability for war crimes isn’t popular but must be done. There is no discretion. The oath compels the Members of Congress to enforce the law, or they can be prosecuted under 5 USC 3331.

The absurdity of the argument over impeachment hinges on the changing standards by which impeachment is or is not going to be considered. The voters have popularly elected the DNC to govern – that means, without oversight or constant supervision, for the DNC leadership to independently exercise leadership, manage a plan to protect the constitution at all times.

Whether the US population does or does not think that something related to accountability is or is not “popular” is irrelevant. The DNC has won the majority vote and controls Congress. Implicit with that majority is the precondition that a majority of Americans, knowing the DNC could impeach the President, might impeach; and they voted for the DNC knowing that the impeachment option was an option.

However, for the DNC leadership, despite winning the majority, to suggest that a “new standard of majority” is required before they will take action asks America to pretend there was no election, implicitly: “Yes, we won the election, and the DNC majority is the popular will of the people, but we in the DNC leadership want something more.”

Get real. You don’t need anything else. Let’s list what you already have, but are not exercising your options:

1. You have the legal power to assert your oath;
2. You have the legal obligation, as you promised with your oath, to preserve the Constitution;
3. You have the legal and Constitutional power, using any criteria you choose, to bring charges for anything against any US government official

It is irrelevant whether those charges do or do not rise to Constitutional standards warranting removal. The House may, at any time, for whatever reason, impeach any Government official for anything.

It is irrelevant whether the Senate may or may not convict. Impeachment is a sole power of the House. There is nothing else required.

* * *

It is troubling to hear any commentary from any of the DNC leadership that, despite the oath, election mandate, and Constitutional power delegated to the House, that the DNC wants another hurdle for action: Whether those who may oppose and not support accountability can or cannot be convinced to support what they have otherwise not supported.

This is absurd. The House is a political creature of the Constitution. Nowhere is the House required to decline to assert power because the objects of that lawful assertion of power disagree. Rather, the intent of the framers was to organize, induce, and inspire factions to clash, not wait until the opposing faction agrees there should be no clash.

It is absurd for the House leadership to suggest that the intent of the framers – that of having a clash between factions – is only possible when all opposing factions support the possible consequences of that clash: Adverse consequences. It is ridiculous to suggest any opposing group will support adverse consequences – if they did, the original abuses would not have occurred; and the prospect of consequences would have deterred the original wrong. This did not occur.

By design the Framers designed the US Constitution to create factions and induce them to clash, not fear a clash over what may or may not happen.

* * *

I am concerned the House leadership, despite their well recognized experience, appear to have not comprehended the notion of clashing factions, not only in Constitutional legal theory terms, but in a practical application of asserting the oath.

Perhaps the leadership, if the weather is favorable, may wish to openly discuss these issues:

___ Why are you asking for support from an opposing faction is not inclined to support consequences?

You have been given the voter’s mandate; the voters made a fully informed choice: By voting for the DNC attached with that was the possibility that the House might assert all powers, regardless what the voters said.

Each election is known in advance to be a two-year time window. For two years after the November 2006 elections, the new majority leadership can do anything they want. You already have the majority support.

___ How do you explain, despite the majority support, a fear that you do not have the support which you are Constitutionally delegated?

This makes no sense. You were voted to implement the powers you were delegated; not, contrary to the Framers intent, ask the voting public – despite their support -- to seek permission to do something We the People – through the Constitution – have expressly delegated to you the power to do: Impeach.

The issue of “popularity” is a concern. Voters have no say in whether the House is or is not delegated the power to impeach: The delegation of power, regardless the voters desire, is expressly delegated to the House. The voters have no input to whether the delegation of impeachment power is or is not real: It is a real power delegated expressly to the House with the Express intent that the House leadership use that power ANY WAY YOU DESIRE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PUBLIC. We voted for you knowing fully well you may or may not choose to assert this power of impeachment.

You do not have to come back to We the People to get support, permission, or an approval. Our delegation of power in the Constitution was intended to give you the latitude to conduct impeachment proceedings on secret issues which We the People may not be given access. Congress has the power to review information in secret; and this information can be the basis to impeach anyone in the US Government.

The concern is that if, despite your ability to review information in secret, you still have to be monitored, and you have a problem: You’ve been given the power to independently act, review evidence in secret, but We the People cannot be sure that you’re going to do your job. Rather, despite possibly reviewing secret information, you may choose to assert that, on the basis of We the People having access to that information and not understanding your decision, that we might not support your decision. This is irrelevant. You have been given the power though the electoral process to act as our REPRESENTATIVES; it is absurd for the DNC leadership in the House, despite this REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT to pretend otherwise: That somehow, despite this delegation of power, each assertion of power by the House in the clash of factions, has to be sent back to We the People in a referendum. IT does not. A Republic is not like that – power is delegated so that you use it, even on secret matters, to fully assert your oath, protect the Constitution, and ensure it remains a viable document.

The perverse request for “voter support” – to assert a power you have expressly been delegated to assert, and forcefully clash with in the clash of factions – belies the notion of a Republic. Either the House leadership will assert power AS HAS BEEN DELEGATED BY THE VOTERT MANDATE IN THIS REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT -- or you will be reasonably described as being complicit in the destruction, lack of protection, and failure to preserve the Constitution.

American citizens are note required to maintain allegiance to the US Government, only the US Constitution. When the US government – as appears the case today – refuses to do what it promised in its oath, but there is no enforcement mechanism for that failure to act – then WE the People have been DENIED our GURANTEED right to a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT which expressly assumes and relies on an ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

American citizens may lawfully revoke their allegiance to the US government, withdraw all support, move to other lands, wait for an imminent threat from the US Government and United States, and lawfully wage a pre-emptive war against the US government – AS RECOGNIZED AS LAWFUL UNDER GENEVA – with the express intent of lawfully destroying an imminent threat. Foreign fighters have chosen to wage lawful combat against US Government interests.

If you will not enforce the law, then you are an enemy of the law, and under the laws of war, when you are complicit with war crimes, you may be lawfully targeted for lawful destruction. It is within the scope of possibility that the US Congress can be lawfully targeted by the world’s foreign fighters on the assumption that – without an enforcement mechanism of the US laws – the US government remains on the verge of invading all nations.

All foreign governments may lawfully work in concert to lawfully invade, destroy, and level the US Congress on the basis of this reasonable assumption. You will no longer have a place to work. You will have a job without an office. You will have a title without a place to hang your name card. Call it what you like – the US Congress, if it refuses to enforce the law against the US government officials – can be lawfully identified as being complicit with an imminent, illegal invasion of unspecified countries.

These are hardly issues of popularity. Consider what happened after 9-11: There was no nation al poll of what should or should not happen: It was clear there had been a wrong; and the solution was to impose lawful justice through combat operations.

A clear wrong, a clear plan, and a clear agenda. It is another matter whether that plan was poorly executed. Once there is a violation of norms, Congress in the wake of Sept 2001 swiftly moved – it was self-evident there was a wrong which had to be immediately be remedied.

Yet, when we look at the abuses in the wake of 9-11, suddenly the Congress which can move speedily if inspired, suddenly pretends that moving at a speed fast than a glacier might upset the populace.

___ When did Congress, in the wake of 9-11, take a poll of what the populace wanted?

There was no polling. There was a clear wrong, and Congress knew what had to be done.

__ What is the excuse for Congress, despite a clear wrong, pretends it cannot do the same – assert power?

You do not have the liberty, discretion, or latitude to rely on polls. The wrong has been done; the time for the clash of factions is overdue. It is irrelevant that the GOP factions in Congress were unwilling to clash with their GOP factions in the other branches of government. The voters have spoken: We expect you to clash, not wait for us to speak again.

* * *

If Congress has to be told -- AGAIN -- how to do your job, or that it “might be nice” if we saw you enforce the law – then We the People no longer have a GUARANTEED REPUBLIC, but one that is ARBITRARY, and CONDITIONAL. This is UNCONSTITUIONAL.

Congress cannot make a decision to act or not act on the basis of polls. As with 9-11, when there is a clear wrong, Congress must assert power, regardless the disagreement some in opposing factions may have.

You have a mandate, you have been delegated Constitutional power, you have the majority, and you are given the responsibility to clash as a faction against anyone the House chooses to clash with. KNOWING THAT, WE VOTED TO SUPPORT YOU.

If we have to be asked for permission to do what we TOLD you through the CONSTITUTION you had the RESPONSIBILITY TO DO – CLASH – then we need to rethink the competence of those we have elected to office to exercise these powers.

Perhaps the problem is the DNC leadership and the House chamber does not like to Clash; maybe the House thinks that enforcement of the law is discretionary.

* * *

Let’s Consider the purpose of a Legislature, in the context of the British Parliament, the model Congress was build upon. Simplistically, Parliament existed as a forum for We the People to meet and challenge the King. It was a forum. The goal of that forum was to make it known what We the People wanted. For the moment, put aside the issue that it didn’t work all the time, and the important disagreement of 1776 which helped create Constitution.

Parliament existed as a forum to challenge, check, and act as a platform. Its function was to act as the branch of the People and Lords to challenge, support, guide, or remind the King what is most reasonable.

Fast forward to 2006: Congress, despite the principle of a Legislature, is asking that – like a King which needs reminding – that Congress needs a reminder. Let’s play along:

___ What body, outside Congress, is Congress asking to remind Congress of what is reasonable?

___ Does Congress Comprehend that it is not a King, and cannot credibly argue that it requires a reminder, as a King requires a reminder from Parliament?

___ What is the form of this outside body that Congress is asking We the People to create so that Congress, despite its oath and Constitution, get a reminder of what should be done?

___ Does Congress comprehend the absurdity of its request – asking for We the People to “support” and impeachment – when it is Congress that should be turning its attention to the Executive and saying, “Why should we support you?”

The burden is not on WE the People. The Burden is on the President. This Congress, like a King, is lazily pretending it is unclear what should or should not be done. We the People, if we are to believe the stupidity and laziness of this Congress, would be best inspired to call Congress on its bluff – create a fourth branch of government that would, as a Parliament reminds a King, act as an institutionalized reminder on Congress.

That institutional structure has been devised and is part of the New Constitution. The error is for Congress to lazily pretend it can do nothing “Unless the population supports it,” but pretend that it does not need the oversight it is asking for. Either

1. Congress is lazy and requires a fourth branch to oversee it; or
2. Congress is lazy and will not assert its powers; or
3. Congress is afraid of asserting power in a clash of factions for an irrelevant reason; or
4. The leadership in Congress -- despite an oath, election, and delegation of constitutional power -- requires something else to awaken it to what the Framers intended: CLASH.

Let’s consider the possible things of “what else” Congress requires to awaken it to its legal responsibilities.
1. Combat operations are ongoing, and the US government is being defeated, but that wasn’t enough;
2. The prospect for war crimes indictments and disbarments against House leadership is on the table, but that wasn’t enough
3. Something else.

Indeed, there is something We the People can do. Notice the pattern Congress has – despite a clear law and agreement in THE CONSTUTION to clash, Congress pretends those legal REQUIREMENTS are discretionary, and they have retroactively passed new laws undoing what they promised to do.

Consider the trend: Clear agreements, but Congress makes them discretionary. Consider the only real source of Congressional power – the power to tax, appropriate money, and to choose or not choose to delegate the decision on whether money can or cannot be spent.

The General problem is the US Government has a discretionary view on specific legal agreements; We the People may lawfully reciprocate and similarly characterize all contracts as discretionary. We are a nation of volunteers, not barterers.

Congress has no power to tax anyone who refuses to enforce contract obligations; or who is not exchanging one good or service for another.

The way forward is to remind Members of Congress that We the People can, as Congress has done, impose a discretionary authority on whether financial transactions and contracts will or will not be enforced. This is not barter, nor is it an exchange, but a nation of volunteers who freely engage in their desired activities.

If Congress is serious about making its powers discretionary – which they have no power to do, but let’s play along – then We the People should lawfully reciprocate and make all our agreements, contracts, and anything else related to financial transactions, business, and any other financial movement DISCRETIONARY, and NON CONTRACTUAL.

Consider an example: The quote that I wrote: “Beware the leader” – Barbra Streisand publicly performed that quote, and millions of others have mentioned the words. Congress has no power to tax any revenue related to that quote because I REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE COPYRIGHT LAWS RELATED TO RESIDUALS.

Because Congress will not do its job, I refuse to enforce any financial obligations on ANYONE AROUND THE GLOBE related to this well known, well publicized, and body of work which is the subject of litigation, ongoing contractual disputes, and is potentially the source of significant tax REVENUES for CONGRESS.

CONGRESS is DENIED the power to make any claim on all work, performance, or any other transaction related to the performance of that work because I REFUSE to enforce the Copyright Law.

Every citizen of the United States can do the same – make it known that you will volunteer, make your ideas publicly known, and REFUSE to compel anyone to pay anything for your services. The error of Congress is to make people believe they have no options; the truth is that Congress has no power unless we provide it money.

I am not suggesting that you do not pay taxes; or that you engage in barter as a means to avoid tax liability. Rather, I’m suggesting that CONGRESS get a wakeup call: If they look at the Constitution as discretionary, then WE the People should look at all contracts related to revenues, financial transfers, and other things – WHICH CONGRESS DEPENDS TO GET REVENUES – as discretionary.

Congress has NO POWER to compel anyone to enforce a contract; rather We the People can jointly agree NEVER to enforce any contract related to anything that might resemble a financial benefit for Congress.

It is my view that if enough people, corporations, and other entities credibly demonstrate our commitment to reciprocate for what Congress fails to do – that of not enforcing the law – then Congress MIGHT wake up. IN the meantime, the way forward is to call Congress on its bluff, and create a New Constitution that will do exactly what Congress is implicitly asking for: A fourth Branch of Government that, as Parliament challenges the King, so too will this Fourth Branch have the EXPRESS goal to CHALLENGE the Congress:

___ Why are you doing that?

___ Are you sure you’re doing your job?

___ Why are you not asserting your oath?

___ Where is the evidence to suggest you can do nothing?

___ Why are you not faithfully executing your duties as required?

___ Is there a reason that you’re appropriating money for illegal warfare?

___ Do you have a plan to end unlawful support for illegal activity?

___ Can you make a good case why you should not be indicted for war crimes for failing to stop what you know, or should have known, was not a lawful activity?

___ Can you make a credible case why you, as a Member of Congress and at attorney, should not be disbarred for not having faithfully asserted your oath to preserve the Enforcement mechanism required under a Republic?

Where Congress refuses to show it is competent, new rules can be written. Consider what Congress did with the Military Commissions Act, it rewrote the law RETROACTIVELY. This is illegal.

However, under this principle of reciprocity, and a NEW CONSTUTION, we the People may lawfully reciprocate, and make a NEW RULE which expressly delegates to ourselves the power to retroactively make new rules going back to 1789. We have the power to delegate ourselves a NEW POWER which can expressly target MEMBERS OF CONGRESS for anything we arbitrarily choose we want to say must be enforced, prevented, or prosecuted.

If Congress wants to say that the Constitutional enforcement requirements – firmly attached to their oath – are discretionary, then We the People may, with equal discretion, choose to retroactively change the laws which Congress is working, and retroactively undo the power structures which Congress depends.

Translation: If you refuse to assert your power – as you promised – We the People reserve the right to delegate ourselves the power to retroactively do things that will undermine the independence, discretion, and latitude of Congress to independently work, and we may delegate that power to a FOURTH BRANCH which has the sole objective of making Member of Congress daily work routine a LIVING NIGHTMARE.

That New Constitution has been drafted and Congress is DENIED the power to have any input. Oh, by the way – We the People may do anything we like, even if it is not popular with Congress. Federalist 78 says we can, with a proper ceremony, present this New Constitution; and Members of Congress are not allowed to act as if the changes may or may not be put into effect. You have to still do your job under the existing Constitution.

* * *

Consider the joint Congressional-Presidential threat to use military force to compel Goodyear Tire Employees back to work. Arguably, the US government is threatening to use military force to compel civilian workers to support the illegal efforts of the US military.

Let’s consider the DHS workforce camps. Put aside the tin hat arguments about what these might be for. Consider the single idea: The US government is stating that it may, for whatever reason, detain people and put them into workforce camps. Fine.

We the People can do the same for Congress. Under New Constitution, we can compel the US Military to – whenever we desire – to turn the US Congress into a work camp, and lawfully imprison Members of Congress in the Capital MAKING THEM WORK.

The threat of force against We the People was “good enough” for the President and Congress; it’s “good enough” for We the People to lawfully threaten force and imprison Members of Congress in the labor camp they pretend they are free to come and go as the like. Wrong answer.

Members of Congress and Staff counsel have a problem. There have been war crimes, and they’re making excuses to do nothing. WE the People have options. Others have ideas. It should be the express national policy of We the People to:

1. Remind Members of Congress that we should not have to remind them of their oath;
2. Remind Members of Congress that they took an oath to preserve the Constitution;
3. Remind Members of Congress that we expressly delegated them the power to impeach anyone for any reason
4. Remind Members of Congress that we expressly agreed, IN THIS CONSTUTION, to have a GUARANTEE of an ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
5. Remind Members of Congress that we are not required, and cannot be compelled to enforce any contract, agreement, or financial arrangement which Congress might derive any indirect benefit
6. Remind Members of Congress that the Framers intended the factions to clash
7. Remind Members of Congress that a clash of factions is not a majority, but a clash of one or more people in one faction against other factions of one or more people
8. Remind Members of Congress that it is absurd to ask for “popular support” for something that has been popularly INCLUDED as an EXPRESS POWER in the Constitution – the power to impeach
9. Remind Members of Congress that the correct focus should shift from whether We the People can or cannot justify support, to whether the PRESIDENT can or cannot justify support.
10. Remind Members of Congress that We the People can create a New Constitution which expressly creates a fourth branch of government that will do exactly what this Congress implicitly asks for – A new forum to challenge Congress just as Parliament challenged the King
11. Remind Members of Congress that they cannot threaten the use of force to compel anyone to support illegal war crimes
12. Remind Members of Congress that if they threaten force to compel people to support war crimes We the People may lawfully draft langue in a New Constitution delegating to ourselves the express power to lawfully use military force to COMPEL members of Congress to remain CONFINED to Congress until they complete their work, assert their oath, and preserve the Constitution.

* * *

We the People delegated Congress powers, one includes the power and right to legislation, which includes speaking from the Well of the House. This is called leadership.

It is absurd for Congress to delegate that leadership responsibility and duty back to we the people by saying, “We want the public to support what we refuse to do – assert powers delegated in this clash of factions.”

Anyone in the Congress, regardless the faction or party they choose to align themselves, can lawfully say anything on the House floor without fear. When consistent with the Chamber rules, speech is absolutely privileged on the House Floor.

The DNC cannot credibly claim that it is up to the variable “popular support” whether there is or is not impeachment. It’s not our job to mobilize America – it’s the job of the leadership in the Congress to use their bully pulpit.

___ Why are Members of Congress afraid of shutting off funds to Senators who refuse to agree to remove the President from Office?

___ Why are Members of Congress afraid of cancelling all military contracts in districts where GOP Senators continues to allegedly support illegal warfare, and block accountability on the President?

___ Why are Members of Congress afraid of shutting down all funding to any and all GOP Senators who refuse to assent to the rule of law, assert their oath, or do what they should do?

There is no answer. Rather, despite having the power of the purse, the Congress incorrectly believe that this power can only be yielded against the President. Wrong. The power is one, by the Framers design, would be wielded against the opposing factions in the Senate.

SO let’s have it: If this DNC leadership is serious about preserving the Constitution, let’s preserve it by lawfully denying funds to any Senator’s district that refuses to support the immediate removal of this President from office. Let the GOP Senators threaten a filibuster; let the President vote a bill; let the GOP be the one that is obstructing accountability. Then impeach, impeach, and impeach: Make it the job of the GOP Senators to explain why the want to support illegal warfare, have no accountability, and rubber stamp the President’s non-sense excuses for maladministration.

It is the job of the DNC in the House to prompt the debate, and rally the nation to support what you feel you need support. It is not our job to support you – we’ve already done that. You have the majority; you have the power; and you have the duty to clash with the opposing factions. The GOP cannot claim that you’re being mean – the GOP chose to freely start this confrontation when it crossed the line. This confrontation is one the President has started; it is not a question of whether it is or is not popular. It is illegal.

The DNC must use the bully pulpit of the Congress to lead; it cannot delegate this leadership responsibility to those who have elected you. Lead, or we’ll make you with a New Constitution.

* * *

A New Constitution can include a legal mandate that Americans, when they are under the threats that they are today, can be immediately defined as being lawful combatants, and no longer subject to sanctions for any invasion.

Rather, it is possible for the US Government to be summarily exiled to a finite space, and that all American Citizens will be legally – temporarily – assigned to a new Nation. Once this transition occurs, all illegal actions of the US government can be the basis for We the People to conclude that the US Government is an imminent threat; and under the laws of war, we may lawfully invade, and destroy Congress.

By assigning all US Citizens to a “temporary foreign status,” all combat operations by American Citizens would be subject to the Geneva Conventions, not p[art of an internal battle, and whether the US Government did or did not do something would be irrelevant. The US Government would have no resources, people, or ability to defend itself; nor could it lawfully compel anyone to enforce any laws in any other nation. Congress would be stripped of the power to declare that there had or had not been an invasion, and all American citizens’ part of this lawful uprising, rebellion, and insurrection, would be protected and immunized going back to 1789.

This is not currently possible or legal, but it could be if the Constitution were changed. It is possible to create a New Constitution that would lawfully deny the Congress its discretion to do what it is doing : Not doing its job.

* * *

Let’s consider the terms of the oath of office: One key word is “preserve.” For fun, let’s look up the definition of “preserve.”

- To maintain intact
- Prevent something from spoiling it
- Prevent decay
- Prevent something being diminished, or disintegrating
- Prevent something from declining in health or vigor
- Prevent something from deteriorating to an inferior state

Our Constitution was created with the idea that it would be superior to the alternatives. It can hardly be called superior when, despite being delegated power to clash, the DNC leadership asks for permission to do what is expressly DELEGATED.

The Constitution can hardly be called full intact when it is no longer structurally supported; even if the Oath were a super-super-precedent, these members of Congress have asserted that it is discretionary, subject to qualifications, and something they need not respect. The clear signal is that regardless the law or requirement, Congress chooses discretion, nor duty.

To support this constitution, and prevent it from declining, one must accept the recognized state of the Constitution – that factions would clash. It is unpopular for factions to clash, but it is the intended means to prevent the Constitution from spoiling, declining, or deteriorating. If Members of Congress are making excuses why they are not clashing, then they are not fully preserving the Constitution, but permitting it to deteriorate.

It is illegal for Members of Congress, out of fear of doing something unpopular, from doing what it took an oath to remove discretion: The obligation to do what is unpopular, when inaction and all other options, fuel the declining health of the Constitution. Where the laws are not enforced, the Constitution is in an inferior state; where Congress illegally passes a retroactively law saying old law is changed law, the Constitutional prohibition against retroactive law is not being respected, and the Constitution is made inferior to the Framers express intent in the language of the Constitution.

It does not matter than a judge can be convinced that the law can be something it cannot; or that an attorney believes that are immune to accountability for failing to prevent war crimes. Your duty is something you had the obligation to fully assert, fully comprehended – and you agreed, with your oath, to do this. Within the Constitution is the obligation and requirement that the oath be to all laws and treaties, not the ones that can be selectively twisted.

Indeed, 9-11 was a shock compelling swift action; but swift action does not in 2006 justify inaction for the wrongs committed on the back of an original injustice.

The desired state of our constitution is that factions will clash; and a faction of one can start a debate and public discussion on impeachment. Where Congress has the power to do something to fully preserve the Constitution, but refuses to assert it, that is evidence of Members of Congress violating 5 USC 3331. The issue of a legal requirement and duty is not one of popularity, but of obligation, even when unpopular.

Mobilizing support for your action is an exclusive legislative tool and power. The public debate in the House on impeachment should be geared toward forcing the GOP Senate to confront – as a faction – what they have refused and avoided – the faction that remains a threat to their Constitution. Unchecked factions do not preserve anything, but permit that abuse to fest. The GOP understands this thinking – it is the basis for their justification for attacks on the Taliban; yet, the DNC fails to see the similarity between the GOP and the Taliban – factions doing injustice, factions which must be challenged, and factions which may lawfully be confronted. You are either asserting your oath and challenging the abusive factions – regardless their popularity – or you are complicit with that illegal activity which leaves our Constitution in an inferior state.

* * *

American inaction on American government war crimes, and Presidential abuse of power, remains an imminent threat for all people and all nations. When Members of Congress choose inaction, the imminent threat forms the basis for other nations to lawfully rally their people and combat forces to directly confront America. America’s combat forces are stretched, overseas, and in no position to timely mobilize.

It’s one thing for Congress to abuse power by inaction; quite another to fail to comprehend that the abuse of power, when taken to the extreme in these strained combat situations, leaves Congress exposed to lawful decimation. When Members of Congress defy their oath, and fail to fully assert all powers to ensure the Constitution remains in a superior state, the result is not simply a diminished Constitution, but an inspired enemy which has the legal foundation to wage war. Congress cannot make a revitalized army to defend the Capitol in a matter of days; it will take time. It is absurd for Congress, in this vulnerable situation, to glacially move while the injustice is clear.

* * *

Impeachment has been described by some as a political act. This incorrectly suggests that it is a partisan move for advantage. Impeachment is a power which must be used when all options have failed to keep the Constitution in its superior or state.

The popularity of action by a faction – lawfully asserting a delegated power – is irrelevant. If popularity were the measure of success, the misinformed voters, inspired to believe in non-sense, would celebrate war crimes. This is impermissible.

Popularity is of little relevance when the laws are ignored. The misinformed and naïve will popularity support those who abuse power. This is impermissible.

Leaders who must be reminded of their oath are not leaders, but stewards. Leaders who must be reminded to put their oath before popularity are neither competent nor trusted to do in secret what they refuse to do under the exposure to sunlight.

Impeachment is a test not just of the accused, but of the faction – the House majority – in whether they are or are not serious about keeping the Constitution superior, or letting it become inferior. There are alternatives: New leaders, New Constitutions, and New Camps to lawfully compel Members of Congress into work details to clash as a faction, and compel the preservation of the Constitution.

* * *

The error with relying popularity is the perception that – if there is just a little bit more evidence – the last holdouts might shift their support.

___ How long does Congress plan to investigate?

___ Why are Members of Congress not willing to impeach on the easy evidence-charges first; then, as time passes, expand the impeachments, with the more difficult charges?

___ Who is saying that the President may only be impeached once?

___ Why is the GOP Senate not being lawfully threatened with multiple impeachment-trials so that they must explain their refusal to convict self-evident violations of the law to We the People?

Congress is not limited to challenging the President with crimes, but can charge him with anything based on the lack of evidence of his competence. When one defines “impeachment” – a charge of a crime – on the basis of whether there is or is not a conviction, the House leadership misses the point of the impeachment: To publicly ensure factions clash. The Senate has no vote on whether the House Members are or are not fully asserting their oath; only the House can choose what illusions it embraces to believe an inferior Constitution is superior.

* * *

Rather than engage in endless road shows to rally public support, I ask Members of the House to consider an alterative: To, without notice, impeach, and use the Senate well as the ultimate road show. The less time the GOP Senate has to make defenses and excuses, the less prepared they will be to justify their inaction. Indeed, the ruse would require careful timing, but I believe is superior to the alternative – wandering around the country from city to city asking the people who have no vote on conviction to be inspired by those who have already inspired us: The DNC leadership. You were elected because you offered the alternative; do that, you have the support you need. Within your ranks and within the GOP are those who will put their loyalty to the Constitution above all things, and know that impeachment is appropriate. Those who matter will know you are doing the right thing; leave it to use to convince our peers that you are doing the right thing – but you must do the right thing, until then, we will be divided in whether we do or do not support what you may or may not do.

We need action, a clear plan, and let We the People rally to your plan, then we will support you. Until you have a clear plan to put the Constitution first, your desire for popular support – as a condition of impeachment – is backwards. Let the evidence, as any jury would review it, be the test and the standard: Let the Senate fail or succeed; let the Senate be confused whether the voters will or will not support their action.

The faster the DNC leadership injects this debate into the well of the Senate, the faster the GOP will be tripped: The GOP believes it can manipulate the voting public to support GOP Senators who refuse action. Make it clear to the GOP Senators – if they refuse to convict, there will be more evidence of more crimes in the next impeachment, then the next, and the next until they get it right. Eventually the voters will understand that it is the GOP Senate that wants to leave the Constitution in an inferior state and that the GOP Senators are not fully asserting their oath. This is not meant to be nice – it is the clash of factions to protect, preserve, and defend what has been left in an unacceptably inferior state.

* * *

It would please me if the House leadership were to outline a general framework for impeachment – in the context of the number of impeachments that are planned; and how these impeachments will be orchestrated in terms of lawfully targeting GOP Senators who refuse to do what they should: Remove the President from office.

___ Which appropriations to which States will be shut down

___ Which Senators can be assured that, given their lack of support, their voters will see the Senators have jeopardized their State’s economic security

___ Which States show the greatest inclination to support war crimes prosecutors

___ Which States’ Attorney Generals are in a position to bring charges against the President

It is not appropriate for We the people to be delegated with the responsibility to do what the DNC leadership could do with a single act, announcement, resolution, or proclamation: It can be the finding of Congress that specific GOP Senators are complicity with illegal activity, and this information is forwarded to the war crimes prosecutors, State Attorney Generals, and State Attorney Disciplinary Board.

Public support will come when there is momentum. We the People started the momentum with the 2006 election; now Congress must run with the torch, and not hand it back to We the People. Force the GOP Senators to demonstrate they are competent to run with the torch, and they are appropriately imposing the burden on the President, not We the People.

If Congress wants to reward itself for inaction, this can hardly be called superior. Congress cannot reward the inferior, but compel We the People to be superior. Those in Congress who cannot be trusted to do their job can be exiled to a work camp where you are forced to do the peoples business: The US Capitol. Congress cannot take a vacation from its legal duties, while expecting Americans to remain working to support war crimes. When Congress, despite its oath, cannot be inspired to support the Constitution, no one can be compelled to do anything that might support Congress. Any consequences American citizens have been subjected to compel their cooperating with illegal things, can be lawfully thrown back at Congress: They may lawfully be compelled to ensure the same threats for failing to fully assert their oath. Where citizens are possibly denied consideration or standing, Members of Congress may suffer the same consequence. Where public citizens are threatened with loss of home, safety, and liberty if they choose not to cooperate with illegal things, Members of Congress through 5 USC 3331 prosecutions may be subjected to the same lawful consequences and forfeitures. Neither Congress nor the US government can compel any American to remain loyal to a government that refuses to preserve what it has no discretion to weaken.

* * *

Congress must be clear with the evidence and testimony it wants examined; indeed, revealing too much might tip the GOP to obstruct what must be known.

* * *

Impeachment can be for any reason; and the Senate can convict for any charge. Whether that conviction results in removal is secondary. Do not ask whether the President and Senate will cooperate with the removal; but whether the Constitution will be inferior if the House refuses to do what may be unpopular. Success is not in terms of whether the President is removed, but whether the factions have clashed to ensure the Constitution remains superior. The Constitution is superior as long as Congress is willing to ignore the transitory passions of those who wish to make the Constitution inferior.

If power is not used, and factions do not clash, the discretion to impeach can be made mandatory, as is the case with the 5 USC 3331 obligations. Congress has no power to compel anyone to support, with silence or deference to inferiority, what is contrary to the oath. Americans and others may take their business where the law is superior to the inferior US system.

Congress cannot make We the People do anything unless we consent. We have consented to your delegated power of impeachment. We the People can compel Members of Congress they are complying with 5USC 3331. We may, arbitrarily, make new rules that require Members of Congress to prove they are innocent, otherwise they are presumed guilty. Congress cannot credibly argue that some can have the burden of proof shifted, while this standard is not retroactively applied to Members of Congress,

We the People may offer advice, opinions, entertainment, service, hope, ideas, quotes, suggestions, solutions, and results FOR FREE, and Congress will not be able to tax this transaction. Without barter or exchange, Congress is power to compel anyone to provide revenues. Without money, you have no power. We the People are the source of all power – We have the money, you do not.

What’s worse than an expensive quality product? Quality that is free and cheaper than the trash this US Congress is spewing forth to justify malfeasance on 5USC 3331 duties. Congress, if it chooses the inferior, sends a signal that United States employees, management, and systems should not be used. “Sorry, we do not hire people who are affiliated with alleged war criminals.”

All Congressional power can be made ineffectual. Responsible people can put everyone on hold until Congress wakes up. Responsible people can refuse to contract with war criminals. For every law Congress refuses to enforce, We the People may similarly agree not to enforce contracts: No commissions, no lawyer fees, and no revenues for Congress to tax. When everything is free without regard to agreements – as Congress views the law and responsibility to keep the Constitution superior – Congress remains powerless.

* * *

Congress cannot credibly delegate the responsibility for impeachment on the basis of popularity. We the People should throw the monkey on the back of Congress:

___ What’s the Congressional plan, if any, to ensure the Constitution remains superior, not inferior;

__ What is the plan of the elected officials to lead their faction, and create the clash the Founders and We the People expect?

___ Or, are the leaders saying, despite being elected, they have no plan to “get a plan”, and are delegating their legal responsibility – to keep the Constitution superior – to We the People?

The way forward is to remind Congress: The overall “impeachment management plan” is not something that has to be devised out of thin air, not can it be delegated to We the People. The “big plan” is the Constitution.

If Congress wants better guidance and feedback of “what to do” that what is in the Constitution, Congress, by its actions, is communicating clearly: “We need a New Constitution.” It is ready. Congress has the power to remedy the flaws, or the flaws can be remedied without Congressional inputs.

Congress has the duty to oversee the President, self-mange, and conduct its affairs; while engaging in legislative activity related to governance. Congress is not interested in the popularity of the Committee Rules: The Constitution, not popular will, defines what is or is not acceptable. This power of rule making has been delegated to the House and Senate for their discretion; it is not something Congress need to present to We the People at every step a validation or vote of approval. We are a Republic, not a direct Democracy. If Members of Congress prefer direct democracy on issues of impeachment, then feel free to make the case with a lawful amendment; until then, the rules of the House – not direct democracy or populism – apply to the clash of factions.

The way forward is to generate a plan that will be useful to We the People to oversee this US Government, and generate support – on top of the election – for the needed changes Congress refuses or is unwilling to assert as the Framers intended: The clash of factions. We can create new factions, and we can compel less amicable clashes. Congress can be forced with a New Constitution to directly clash with combat forces; and held under siege until they do their work.

Keeping the Constitution in its superior state requires vigilance. The oath must be asserted, not left to the discretion and popularity of those who did not take the oath. If the oath was intended to be contingent upon the popularity of the clash of factions, the oath would have included the statement, “Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so long as it is convenient, and does not upset the opposing faction and remains popular.” The oath does not include any language related to convenience, popularity, or the degree to which any faction does or does not support or oppose the required efforts to faithfully assert all lawful options – doing ones more al best – to assert ones oath. Where there is no language within the four corners of the oath, the language does not exist, and cannot be relied upon a mitigating factor whether the members of Congress have or have not fully complied with their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

* * *

It is incorrect for the DNC leadership to muddle and confuse [a] impeachment; and [b] conviction. The two are not the same. A “successful impeachment” is unrelated to the Senate, but wholly within the four walls of the House: Do the House delegates fully assert their oath to ensure the Constitution remains superior.

It is irrelevant whether the GOP Senators agree or disagree. Information can change public perceptions, especially evidence of DNC leadership inaction and excuses.

The DNC needs to take the lead in engaging the media on impeachment. The GOP is engaging in revisionism, hardly generating irrelevant public support. Juries and prosecutors are told that the trial should not be waged in the media; yet the DNC House leadership prefer the media to generate support, while the GOP Senators are not confronted in the Senate, as they should be. Soon.

The DNC cannot credibly argue that popularity will make a difference. Even if the GOP, by 1/3 margin supported removal, the DNC has yet to specify the level of support would tip the balance; nor make the case that a specific threshold is relevant.

There was a sense of urgency for action in Iraq, albeit based on fabricated evidence; yet Congress shows little urgency to confront a real threat -- not imminent, but pervasive. The GOP wanted fast action based on cursory reviews; the DNC wants exhaustive reviews of exhaustive evidence of conduct warranting removal. Perhaps if the DNC and GOP might come to an agreement: The compromise is on the speed of the removal – fast or faster -- not the assertion of power.

All other agendas are irrelevant: The only relevant agenda is keeping the Constitution superior, and preventing it from becoming inferior. Until the Constitution is first and only agenda, Congress should not be trusted to manage lesser agenda items. If Congress cannot handle simple evidence, it cannot be trusted to handle complicated issues. Impeachment is a test of competence of factions to assert their oath, not in their ability to generate support for inferior Constitutions. Inaction changes the focus from the primary violations to whether Congress is or is not complicit with those violations; and doing or not doing what they should. It is an excuse to distract attention from the failed oath. We the People didn’t take the oath of office. It is inappropriate for the DNC to seek coverage to support what they – by their oath – agreed to support: The Constitution. Popularity is irrelevant on the oath, standards, laws, and evidence or facts. Continued defiance of the oath, and deference to inferior Constitutions is inexcusable and warrants an increase in the 5 USC 3331 penalties.

Congress, in failing to check its flawed logic on the impeachment debate, makes a poor showing whether it is or is not competent to handle the larger issues: Oversight, fact finding, and evaluating reality. Demonstrate the simple; perhaps confidence in the complex might be warranted. Congress flawed logic on the impeachment issues is arguably reckless, giving fair warning the GOP and DNC are equally capable of ineffective governance. Waffling on public issues inspires confidence the secret issues will be similarly bungled – no wonder the President wanted to keep the illegal NSA activity prior to 9-11 Secret: He can be sure of the Congressional incompetence in understanding the difference between the law and the conduct. Popularity gives way to duty; your duty is enforceable 5USC 3331.

Betrayal is measured by the original abuse of power; the subsequent refusal to enforce the law; then the refusal of the factions to clash as they agreed.

* * *

The way forward is to consider what We the People, in the absence of Congressional leadership, must do to ensure Presidential accountability, and a superior Constitution. History’s guide reminds We the People that a government may have to be openly challenged, especially when it remains committed to inferior results. A superior challenge is to refuse to recognize the abused powers, and create a system where the abusers are lawfully excluded.

If we must remind Congress to check facts, we have a bigger problem than whether the Congress is or is not competent to assert power. It is doomed to get lost in the details while the opposing factions expand their abuse. Our job is to keep looking where Congress is not focused, vigilant to the possibility there are other illegal ruses unfolding. This illegal activity cannot lawfully be classified and should be immediately shared. Yes, the shredder trucks are busy. Adverse inferences can be made when required documents are not available

The mandate after 9-11 was clear: The world was with us. Today’s question is what kind of mandate will this Congress establish with what it does or does not willingly do on issues of the oath and the Constitution. The world examines whether the US Constitution remains superior. American values is not a buzzword to replace the rule of law with inferior performance; nor is it a green light to employ values invaluably. The greatest error would be to let the Taliban show the world it has a superior system of accountability. The only option is to work within the law; by moving outside the law, the faction has no option but to clash.

Sovereignty is a question of whether the US government is able to manage its own affairs; or whether outside forces must be brought into the nexus to do what the US government refuses to do – enforce the law. There was consensus the Sept 2001 attacks were not acceptable; it cannot be credibly argued this status quo can go unchallenged. We were told we needed to put our snake boots on to confront someone abroad; the snake boots are on, the confrontation at home as started. Sept 2001 was not a mandate for tyranny, but justice; nor a mandate for abuse, but accountability; the error is to use 9-11 as the pretext for an inferior Constitution.

We must see that illegal activity is challenged, not muffled under the smokescreen of foreign adventures. Foreign threats cannot be used to make our Constitution as inferior as that perceived threat.

Our Civil War, when it was over and the factions had clashed, hinged on reconciliation. It is premature to talk of reconciliation; the factions must clash. The DNC cannot credibly argue for inaction while the GOP continues to abuse power, and rewrite history over whether the power was or was not abused. Until the GOP is lawfully defeated by a superior Constitution and faction, the GOP remains a threat to the superior Constitution. Talk of reconciliation, without a confrontation, is premature. Compromise leaves us with an inferior Constitution.

The GOP has a higher burden of proof. They have betrayed our trust. This cannot be permitted nor rewarded within inaction. It is the duty of the government to assert its oath, not wait until it becomes popular to do what has not been rewarded. The only measure of any reward is whether the Constitution remains superior. It’s debatable what might be devised to prevent this; but there are options which Congress refuses to consider. It remains to be explained by the US Attorneys and American legal community how this level of illegal activity of illegal activity could spread, but the legal community is silently endorsing the silence of factions. The American legal community has not adequately policed its own; a new system of governance is required to compel attorneys to put their oath before their loyalty to illegal factional activity. The way forward is for We the People to cancel contracts, remove support, and withdraw allegiance for those institutions which refuse to keep the Constitution superior. Some may have agreed to do nothing about illegal support for war crimes, but that is no basis for anyone to remain complicit with that illegal support. We cannot sympathize with those who show no sympathy for a superior Constitution.

America, like the USSR was, is not guaranteed a pedestal in history. A desired place in history must be actively preserved, not hoped for. Peace will come when the world sees it has abused power, and the leadership has been appropriately held to account, regardless the popularity of that confrontation. Until then, foreign fighters may lawfully wage war against American with the express goal of destroying what Americans refuse to lawfully manage: Their Constitution. Mismanagement is not an excuse to wage illegal warfare or put ones leaders above the law. The US confronted this abuse of power in Nazi Germany and the USSR. The US government must decide whether it will voluntarily do what others have refused, or whether it is similarly destroyed. America must be held to the same standard, otherwise it remains illegitimate. Americans may lawfully give up their citizenship and defend other lands and superior systems against what Americans refuse to respect: The rule of law. No allegiance can be compelled when there are no compelling reasons.

* * *

The way forward is to openly discuss the criteria to evaluate whether this DNC House and Congress is or is not competent; or whether it should lawfully be replaced with a new system, which may or may not have at its leadership either the DNC or GOP.

Criteria to Evaluate Government

___ Does the government do what it should without constant monitoring of every action; or can it be reasonably trusted to do what it should do, even in secret.

___ If the military is required to ensure it does what it should, adverse inferences can be made – the Government requires tyranny to do what it otherwise refuses to freely do. That is not freedom but despotism.

___ Does government have two standards on agreements – Strict interpretation with respect to We the People, but compels discretion when standards are applied to government.

___ Does government have two standards on whether leadership, competence, faith and performance are or are not implemented. Is there one standard to justify accountability; but a second standard to justify moving the line on accountability.

___ Has the issue broadened from the original wrongdoing and maladministration; to whether those charged with oversight responsibility can or cannot be trusted to faithfully do their job to oversee?

___ Has the government responded to the sovereign – We the People – or must the government be reminded of what it freely took at oath to do without being told. Faithfully doing ones job, regardless whether we the people are or are not watching. If secrecy is abused, secrecy can be denied as a lawful forum to make independent agreements.

___ Has government interpreted mandatory requirements as discretionary, thereby destroying the agreement it agreed to preserve: The Constitution

__ Is the government mandating We the people do things the government should do; then berating the public for exercised those requirements, but has done nothing with what the government has requested: Support, loyalty, and allegiance

___ Can the government be trusted to do what it promises

___ After being delegated power, does the government delegate responsibility back to the sovereign – We the People

___ Is the government serious bout its statements, oaths, and actions to ensure the Constitution is superior

___ Does the government create new requirements, outside our agreement, to justify inaction?

* * *


It is inappropriate for the majority party to delegate any responsibility or notion of “popularity” on issues which are outside popularity: The binding oath, the Constitution, and the eternal duty to ensure the Constitution remains superior. It is not the job of We the People to popularly re-support what has been given the Constitutional mandate, power, and discretion to assert power as a faction and compel others to prove they remain loyal to a superior system.

Where factions fail to assert power, despite that express delegation, the faction fails as a credible force to preserve the Constitution. That faction must be challenged, lawfully invigorated, or left to wither where other failed factions have been lawfully destroyed.

The American factions, despite being defeated by combat factions, refuse to accept that defeat on the battlefield is final: There are no other options. The Constitution, despite its obligations, was thwarted, and left in an inferior position. The factions have put their factional interests above their oath, and pretend inaction is justified until the factional competition becomes popular. It never will, and will never be, as the Framers intended.

Power is not employed lightly. It is only marginally delegated. We the People have retained all non-delegated powers which include the lawful power to put Congress in an inferior position, and lawfully expose it to the lawful threat of further combat losses in foreign shores. If Members of Congress are not interested in protecting the Constitution, We the People need not show interest in protecting Congress.

Combat is serious business. Congress must decide whether it is willing to keep its snake boots on and confront the mess it alone has permitted to spiral out of control; or whether adults from foreign lands shall impose order where American refuse. Congress shall have to decide whether it will voluntarily choose to assert its oath, confront the inferior Constitution this leadership has created; or whether Congress is forced to confront on the battlefield additional combat losses, then compelled to assent to a New Constitution which Congress may not find popular. Victory goes to those who prevail, not to those who pretend one victory is sufficient as an eternal mandate. A mandate is not a pedestal; it is a start, but hardly the first move. You must do your job, assert your oath, lawfully assert power, and compel the factions to clash; otherwise, Americans shall be compelled to ensure additional combat losses, then forced to clash at home. These are issues of power not popularity; of prudence not passion; of protection of what is superior, not deference to lesser standards. American citizens, the world, and future generations will observe, take note, and choose whether the American model is or is not superior. The model is superior only when it remains a model not an excuse to avoid confronting the inferior.

Choose wisely.