Update Evening 30 Jan 2006
Here's the clause that gives the President power to disban Congress:
in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;AII Section 2 REf
Also, here's the inherent authority of the Senate to check the President's power:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate . . . REf-- In other words, if the Senate chooses to say, We do not consent/assent to your power, we need not consider the treaty or appointment. We can filibuster." -- That's the "inherent legilsiative authority" to refuse to cooperate with the President.
If the Senate has "no inherent authority. . ." then neither does the President. You can't have it both ways. Read more about "inherent legislative authority" below.
[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive
; Click here
to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive
.]Updated: 30 Jan 2006
The American Senate has been discredited as a credible forum for public debate. They have made a grave error. The States are in a position to act. There is a plan.
The American government refuses to discuss issues. There is a backup. Here's the ongoing effort at the state level to issue the proclamation to impeach the President Click here
Also, this blogspot outlines the issues to discuss in preparation of the State Proclamation
to impeach the President. The information outlined below is the information you, at the state level should begin discussing with your friends. This information will show you how to organize your state and bring a proclamation demanding the House investigation. There is nothing the House or Senate can do to stop this. It only takes one state. Here's more on that: http://tinyurl.com/7tmyg
. * * *
The information that follows in the rest of this blogspot -- outlines the detailed information the States may wish to review:
How the States are going to choose the next President
What the States can do to remove unresponsive Senators from office
How to manage the information to lawfully remove the President.
The information below is designed to assist you. It is fairly straight forward. Share it with your friends. You do have options. Don't lose hope. There is a plan to protect your Constitution.
* * *
Take the time to express your opinions about the Senate:
- You appareciate those who voted "no" on cloture -- they wanted to hear more discussion, even though Alito was going to be confirmed.
- You remind the Senators who voted "yes" that they have thrown away a chance to discuss important issues -- and that the States will have to act on impeachment.
Here is the vote tally: Click
Here is the contact infromation for the senators: Click
Either way, take the time to express yourself and know you have options. You are a voter and you can make choices.
The Senate has failed.
* * *
As you move forward, know that although the Senate chose to rubber stamp the nomination -- and not engage in any serious debate -- there is another option. The State voters can use today's vote to take action: The Senate is part of the problem, not the solution.
It is time to mobilize your friends locally, and realize that you do have options. The State legislatures -- all 50 of them -- have the power to issue a proclamation demanding the House investigate. They have no choice but to vote on this.
Today, we see that America is not serious about fact finding or debate -- just as we learned in the wake of the Patriot Act signing and the Iraq WMD issues. Today, despite the many lessons since 2003 and the lies about WMD in Iraq, the American Senate has chosen to continue with the same: Assert deadlines that do not matter, and shut down debate.
Hamas has a democracy. The American Senate refuses to discuss issues. It simply rubber stamp issues.
The Senate made a fatal error. They shut down the debate. Just because the Senators were for a nominee, they still could have engaged in a wider discussion of the way forward. There is the NSA investigation. The State action on the proclamation continues.
The Senate missed a chance to openly discuss issues. This is the wrong signal for the states and the voters. IT is clear that the American Federal government chooses to do the same that it has been doing before 9-11: Assert action without carefully reviewing the options or considering other views.
The States and voters have options. Today, the voters saw the Senate refuse to address key issues. There are larger issues surrounding this White House. If the senate will not address these issues during an open debate, when will it?
It is clear the Senate has no plan for discussion or accountability. Rather, there will be new excuses not to look into matters. Yes, today is unfortunate, but it is a bigger problem for the Senate. They will have to face the voters to explain why they did not review during extended debate many issues surrounding this White House.
The States have already taken action. The State proclamation is in preparation. The Senate cannot prevent all 50 states from acting. Today, the World sees that America is not serious about debate. The voters have been given fair notice. In the upcoming days and weeks, know that the 2006 election is really about finding a new President. Yes, this President will be impeached. There is more evidence.
IT remains to be seen whether the Senate will really review information. Today's vote says they will not. Your job as a voter is to remember this -- and find new senators who will review information, and take the time. The States have the option also to issue proclamations calling for Senators to be expelled for failing to honor their oath, and engage in fact finding. The States can do this. There is nothing the Senate or House can do to stop you from voting to have them thrown out of office.
America once fought for freedom around the Globe. Today, America reminds us -- as with the many abuses over rendition, torture, and the unlawful NSA surveillance program -- that the States have to intervene, provides adult leadership. The Senate shows it is unwilling to exercise the needed leadership.
Beware voters, you were warned: remember this? I have returned. I am the author.
Prepare your states to vote! This President shall be impeached shortly.
Hoc Voluerunt !
* * *
Don't lost hope. Just because the Senate voted down the right to "openly discuss a matter," there's a way to force the Congress to act -- the States have the power to issue a proclamation to investigate the President. This will by pass the RNC Controlled House and Senate. There is nothing the RNC can do to stop this. Discussions are already underway to have the states issue a proclamation.
The information that follows in this blog is the information that planner may wish to consider when preparing for the impeachment and conviction phases.
* * *
Even though Alito will be confirmed, there's a way to start the impeachment process without going through the House Judiciary. Here's how http://tinyurl.com/7tmyg. Pass to your friends -- yes, you're pissed off -- so this is what you can do to get an investigation going into the President.
|Here's the information from today's message traffic:|
Action Alert: To anyone in DC -- zip this link on your mobile. RNC has been removing this information. They want it suppressed. Send the link into the Senate chamber. This is no joke. This is the filibuster agenda that the RNC is suppressing.
This is no joke -- zip this link on your mobile -- it's bouncing fast, and it can hit one of the staffers who can notify the Senators before they vote. There's a problem with the RNC suppressing this plan. The Senators need to review this information before they cast their vote.
Zip this link fast! Go do it!
Key Point: There is a plan and an agenda to carefully, and methodically review the many issues during a filibuster. A filibuster is an open debate -- about the issues the RNC refuses to discuss. The filibuster is the chance to organize to Senate to lawfully remove the President from Office.
Do not believe that "just because the RNC is in charge" that the President cannot lawfully be removed from office. There is a way to have an impeachment without going through the House Judiciary Committee. here's how. If you give up the right to speak -- you cannot then consider the larger picture: The RNC is in a no-win situation over impeachment, none of the arguments/defenses are valid. The time to prepare for the Senate NSA hearings is during the filibuster -- the filibuster will focus the inquiry to ensure the Senate and House has the information needed to impeach and remove the President from office. The RNC wants to shut down the filibuster so you never organize to protect the Constitution.
The RNC is engaged in a disinformation campaign. They are removing this proposed agenda from serious consideration. Your job as a blogger is to share this link using your e-mail. There are e-mails flying around about this. Remember, the Senators have pagers -- they can get an intercept with their blackberries. So keep on this. The RNC is in trouble!
Updates: Action Alert -- Please pass this link quickly -- let your friends know that your calls are reversing the momentum. Even though Alito may get confirmed, there is still a great opportunity for an open debate. Although you may believe that "there's no chance" Alito will not get confirmed, you may be the one that can keep the "right to speak" alive. Let's have an open discussion: Why is the RNC afraid of the issues below, and why the rush, just as we did with Iraq WMD and the Patriot Act?
Action alert: Please post this link to the Conyers Blog, and other places -- let them know there is a proposed filibuster agenda which the RNC will not talk about. What is the RNC afraid of?
Action Alert: Please post this link to America Blog; Daily Kos, Raw Story, Atrios for comments, and Crooks and Liars and comments.
Keep this moving -- the Senators are changing their minds!
* * *
Welcome! You are in the right place. The plan is outlined below: What the filibuster agenda could be -- Even if you oppose Alito, it's good to listen to a debate, to understand and hear views.
Please share this link with others -- Filibuster's don't have to stop Alito -- A filibuster can offer a chance to discuss important issues. Here is the plan, and how a filibuster can organize the Senate to protect the Constitution: Miblog thanks for the support!
Here's the Washington Post
Here is some discussion for your reference.
Alert: The RNC and MSM are ignoring coverage of this issue: The possibility that Alito could be filibustered, even though confirmed.
Alert: The RNC is also shutting down links to this site. They're suppressing this plan. They do not want this plan to be read or discussed. Why is that -- why does the RNC fear discussing these issues? Even if ALito is confirmed, what is the RNC afraid of?
* * *
Here is the plan the RNC is suppression about the filibuster agenda.
It is proper the Senate openly discuss the Presidents open defiance of authority. It is fitting we put aside other issues and focus squarely on what shall be done to lawfully remove this man from office.
Extended debate is needed. It is fitting the country review the matters. The RNC is in a no-win situation.
There is no reason to fear the President. We have the shield of the Constitution and the sword of the filibuster. Send your thoughts and support to those who defy the President's rebellion against the Constitution.
The President has made a fateful error. He is unfit to lead. He must be removed from office. Our job is to spread the word -- there is a way to do this, and the Senate must have an extended debate to openly discuss the way forward.
At this hour, Senator Kerry and Kennedy are reviewing the filibuster. We need to support them. The Senate’s filibuster is more than a debate, it preserves our Republic from rebellion, and sparks needed checks on power.
Article II Section 2 is the Senate’s inherent authority to check the Executive’s power. If the Senate does not assent to the President’s power, they need not consider the qualifications of the nominee.
A filibuster is simply an extended debate. Senate rules which mandate the Senate not review Presidential power are not consistent with Article II Section 2.
* * *
The President has made a fatal admission. He admits he derives his power from the Constitution; while at the same time admitting he ignores the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches -- has failed to secure warrants without probable cause.
The President took an oath – promising God – that he would protect the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly says the President has the duty to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. But the President fails to meet this test.
The Constitution is his authority. One who defies authority is in rebellion. The States are protected through Article IV Section 4 the right to a republican form of government. The States need to debate the nature of this rebellion, and request of Congress – holding the power to raise and support armies – assistance to protect their republican form of government from violence.
Those in the NSA and White House who are leading this rebellion have a problem. The 14th Amendment, Section 4 does not recognize any debt used to support a rebellion. This means contractors who are working in support of this rebellion cannot lawfully make a lawful claim to the US.
* * *
Senator Kerry and others are aware of the issues. A filibuster needs to openly discuss the alleged conspiracy.
Those in the DNC who support the filibuster may be in support of this rebellion. The open debate within the Senate and the States needs to consider what is to be done.
* * *
We have heard from like Senator Byrd and Senator Landrieu that they will not support the filibuster. The DNC should contrast their statements. The Senate and American public should call into question their integrity.
Senator Byrd, despite his love of the Senate, complained in the wake of the patriot Act that we were rushing to war. He wanted to have more information. He thought it was wrong to take action. I question why he sees it fit to not discuss now the fitness of the president and whether his power should be recognized.
Senator Landrieu stated several weeks ago that the reconstruction efforts in Louisiana were going along fine, thanking the President. Now, she has reversed herself saying that other issues need attention. We question her integrity and fitness for office.
* * *
The Senate through Article II Section 2 may use any standard, and discuss any matter while reviewing a nominee. There is no requirement that a comment be germane.
However, the Senate leadership fails to grasp the enormity of the problem. The Senate has the power to raise questions at any time about the President’s fitness for office; and whether his power should or should not be recognized.
Every time the President issues a request that a nomination be considered, the Senate may refuse that nomination. The Senate does not have to recognize or review the nominees record. Rather, the Senate can review whether or not the President has any lawful power.
* * *
At this juncture, there is reasonable belief that the rebellion is spreading. A rebellion simply ignores authority – in this case, the Constitution.
* * *
We encourage the States to review the matters. Bluntly, given the non-existent evidence about WMD in Iraq, it appears the states have been asked to raise and support national guard units that are being used in support for an unlawful purpose. The State legislatures need to discuss whether this puts the Republican form of government at risk.
* * *
The Senate rules barring discussion of the President’s fitness for office need to be reviewed. The Senate rules require constitutional issues to take priority. The Senate must eliminate any rule which bars the Senate from exercising its inherent authority to call into question the President’s power. It is not lawful for any Senator to threaten another Senator with speculative future harm if they continue to discuss a constitutional matter.
The Senate should discuss what is known. We have been lied to. The NSA is in rebellion. They defy our Constitution. The President assents to this rebellion. We need not trouble ourselves with a single nominees qualifications.
* * *
There is already an effort in place at the state level to discuss these issues. The RNC has no defense. The States – all fifty of them – are in a position to discuss these issues. The States must decide whether they want to preserve this Constitution from the President’s rebellion.
It is time for individual citizens to review the Constitution, and demand your State Legislature raise these issues. Your job as a blogger is to monitor whether the issues are or are not getting attention; then blog about:
Is your state legislature serious about Article IV Section 4 in ensuring we have a Republican Form of government;
What reasons -- or excuses, as is more likely – are you hearing or reading -- either on the internet or in the open media -- that hopes to dissuade needed attention on the President’s fitness for office.
The States have the power to compel the Congress to publicly debate. It is time to see whether the Congress is willing to tackle these issues, or is in rebellion against the Republic.
Yes, those who want to avoid these issues should have their commitment to their oaths of office questioned. Their position is important. It will give voters an idea of whether their state and federal elected officials are for or against the Constitution.
* * *
Now is the time to Assert Article II Section 2. The Senate has the inherent power to call into question the President’s power whenever they review a treaty or nomination.
Whether the nominee is or is not qualified is irrelevant. Article II Section 2 gives the Senate the power to review – and consider whether they do or do not consent – the President’s power.
The information we have before us – on the eve of the Senate review of the NSA – is that the President is in rebellion, unfit for continued office, and many in the Senate are in defiance of their oath. Many in the Senate wish to avoid these important matters. They have not demonstrated they are committed to their oath of the Preservation of this Constitution; or the protection of the Republic from this rebellion.
* * *
Senator Kerry has one goal: To preserve the Constitution. It is fitting and proper he do so. No one in the Senate has any lawful or moral argument to assert otherwise. Those Senators who question Senator Kerry’s position and desire to discuss a small matter should have their integrity questioned. Those in the Senate who refuse to permit a discussion of a Constitutional matter should be expelled – they have failed to honor their oath.
Those in the DNC – like Senator Byrd and Senator Landrieu – who wish to ignore the Constitutional issues, and end the debate – should have their power stripped. The DNC should move to expel them. All funds to Senator Byrd and Senator Landrieu’s political campaigns should be cleaned out. All funds going to any DNC candidate that supports this rebellion – and refuses to discuss the President’s unfitness for continued service – should be expelled form the DNC. If you are in support of a rebellion, we need not include you in the DNC caucus.
* * *
The filibuster is an open debate. The issue is whether the President is fit for office. The way forward is simple. The process is straight forward. The Constitution guides us. I encourage you to ignore everything I have said, do not rust what I say, and question everything that I have said above. Simply read the Constitution. The answers are there.
Your job is to scream at me, yell as loudly as you can, and defy what I have said. If you are silent, then you assent to what I have said: The President is in rebellion – as he has admitted.
Your job – if you read the Constitution and agree with me – is to know your job is to simply use your mind and do what must be done to perverse this Constitution.
You are not asked to put yourself at risk. Nor are you asked to violate any law. Nor are you required to do or not do anything. Rather, your job is simply to use your mind, question what I have said, and then come to your own conclusion.
Perhaps nothing is to be done. I leave that up to the infinite wisdom of the voters and the State Legislators to review. I am confident they will exercise their oaths of office – and through Article IV Section 4 – seriously consider whether they do or do not think it is appropriate to consider the Constitution.
* * *
It is our job as Americans to assert the rule of law, and stand with those who wish to put the sword of the filibuster to the throat of a rebellious president. The filibuster has one purpose: To discuss and share ideas. How fitting.
Your job is to call your state and federal elected officials and remind them what this is about: A filibuster is needed to raise the issue of why this President is in rebellion, and what must be done to remove him from office.
Perhaps, with debate and review, the nation will find that the President has freely assented to the rule of law, and that history is not what it is.
But the facts prove otherwise. The NSA has staged a coup. They have used military power to subvert the 4th Amendment. They have openly defied the court. And ask the world to believe they are fit to be trusted.
Their oath is to protect the Constitution – from both foreign and domestic enemies. They have failed. They have joined the rebellion. They move in defiance of our republic and our Constitution.
The Constitution in Article 14 provides a remedy. All who are in rebellion lose their offices. This means those within the NSA and White House who have staged this rebellion shall lose all future right to hold any office. They know this. Again, they took oaths – as the 14th Amendment requires – supporting the Constitution. They have decided to join the rebellion. For that alone, the Filibuster compels the Senate to ignore the nominee, and look straight at the President and rebuke his power.
A filibuster is appropriate. It will raise needed debate. And the public will be able to see on C-Span what is or isn’t discussed. All Senators have the ability to freely speak. Even if those in the DNC who wish to join the rebellion – and end the debate – the Senators will have time to discuss what is to be done.
Listen carefully. The Senators are not allowed to – by name – directly question the fitness and integrity of their fellow Senators. But read between the lines. The oath forces the Senators to look at the issue.
The dramas you will see play before you in the media, airwaves, and on the Senate floor is simple. It is about a spreading rebellion. And the Senate is not allowed to identify the specific Senators who have defied their oath, joined in the President’s rebellion, and have chosen to put the Republic at risk.
Your job as a blogger is to remind your State officials that you are watching – not just in the media – but in the blogsophere – what is going on. You will form judgments. You will notice whether the rebellion is faced head on, or whether your State chooses to ignore their Article IV Section 4 power to ask for assistance.
The right answer is to discuss this matter. The wrong answer – as those in the Senate who have joined the rebellion – is to prevent discussion of the President’s fitness for office, and compel a vote.
They have made a poor choice.
* * *
Filibusters are appropriate. They are simply debates. The Senators can discuss anything. And in this case it is fitting to face what is happening.
The rebellion has one goal – to avoid accountability for war crimes in Iraq; to escape accountability for the unlawful use of military power against civilians; and dissuade the public from discussing their fitness for office.
Throughout the Constitution you will see hints of hope. The Constitution is more than a piece of paper. It is a woven fabric of power. Within each Article, the three branches of power are interwoven. Some threads are more obvious, others remain hidden waiting the right moment.
The President made a fateful error. He has asserted authority under the Constitution, and has defied that document. He openly admits he defies authority. And he openly acknowledges his oath to that document. He has fatally admitted that her defies authority – the Constitution – and leads others. That is a rebellion. The Senate and States must review this matter, before considering the qualifications of the nominee.
* * *
The filibuster is prudent. Consider what might have happened had the Republicans successfully staged a filibuster against Democratic Party Presidents. There are two noteworthy examples, both showing the RNC failed to exercise their prudent use of power.
First, Korea. Truman left the situation in a mess. Today, we have the results. Continued stand off. The Republicans could have compelled Truman to do something else. They had the power to not recognize what Truman was doing, and refuse to fill any vacancies. The filibuster would have permitted the Republicans to challenge the President, defy his solution, and compel something other than what we have. The RNC refused to filibuster.
Second, Vietnam. Johnson lied, and Rumsfeld in 1975 later went along with the lies. The Republicans could have filibustered early in the 1960 to compel a new approach. The filibuster was not used to end the war in the 1960s. The republicans showed they are unwilling to assert Article II Section 2 to check unlawful squandering of our military in foreign adventures. The RNC refused to filibuster.
Today, in 2006 the Filibuster remains a tool. Time and time again, the Republicans have failed to stand up to imprudent use of power, have let absurd military results fester and spread like a cancer. There are alternatives. But the Republican chose to remain weak, not honor their oath, and simply complain. Article II Section 2 gives the power to the Senate to check the President’s use of power. The republicans failed, as they fail today.
* * *
It has come into fashion to believe in fantasies. Karl Rove, the buffoon that he is, would have us believe that we are safe. This is curious.
Now we learn before 9-11 the warrantless surveillance was fully engaged. Despite the unlawful activity, the attacks came, as did the attacks on the RNC offices.
Rove and Cheney would have us believe that – because of the unlawful use of NSA surveillance -- no Americans have been attacked since 9-11. Curious, a carefully reading of the citizenship qualifications in the Constitution does not mention this--when one takes a solemn oath to join the military, they do not lose their American citizenship. We have 2,000 dead Americans despite the unlawful NSA monitoring.
The Republicans would have us believe that the world changed on 9-11 or that Iraq is a line in the sand. This is a ruse. The unlawful use of military force at home – a rebellion – was fully engaged before 9-11; and continues in Iraq. 9-11 and Iraq are merely illusory benchmarks. The Republicans were already in rebellion before 9-11.
The republicans have shown us – despite their unlawful use of military power and domestic surveillance – they have not stopped deaths on 9-11 or in Iraq. America is not safer because of the unlawful use of military power – at home or abroad. Rather, it remains a question for the States to debate: Why should we believe the NSA will be used to do what must be done.
The NSA knew there was no WMD. But the unlawful use of state resources continues. The States need to ask why their citizens are being used for an unlawful war.
The NSA knew enough before 9-11 to start monitoring illegally. The States need to ask: What else does the NSA know about this rebellion that should be considered in light of Article IV Section 4. It is prudent to request assistance to protect your State’s Constitutional form of government.
* * *
You need not be afraid. You are not under any physical threat. Your heart pounds simply because a hidden thread within the Constitution has touched your soul. You are awakened.
* * *
The way forward is to tell your friends. Let them know the rebellion has been revealed, and that the Senate chooses to assent to this rebellion. The President – the leaders of this rebellion has used military force unlawfully, abroad and at home. The rebellion has moved into a second phase: To avoid consequences. Those in the DNC who have joined the rebellion want the filibuster to end. They have failed to honor their oaths.
Your job is to remind your State legislators that you can collectively move to have those in the rebellion stripped of their power to hold office. They can be banned form the DNC. All funding sent to support those in rebellion is an unlawful support of rebellion. It is not lawful. Your states must discuss which funds must be withheld.
* * *
There is one right approach from the Senate:
The filibuster must continue until the President is impeached;
There shall be no agreement to assent to the rebellion – the only lawful agreement is the Constitution and the oath of office.
The Senate must proceed with all due speed with the investigation into the NSA’s unlawful use of military power in violation of the 4th Amendment, Article 1 Section 8, and FISA>
Watch closely. Who in the DNC supports the rebellion. Who refuses to assert the power in Article II Section 2. The President’s rebellion cannot be supported; nor can those in public office who support this rebellion.
If the national leadership is unwilling to remove themselves from the rebellion, the states know what to do. They can issue a proclamation. This will force the House to commit to an answer: Are they with or against the President’s rebellion.
* * *
The filibuster will be an opportunity to discuss the above issue. And many more. Yet, the rebels in the Senate do not wish to question the rebellion. Rather, they want to move onto other things – as Senator Byrd and Senator Landrieu would. This is not to say that these Senators have specifically joined the RNC in rebellion – only that the States need to discuss why they have spoken out of both sides of their mouth. Perhaps they do not realize what they are saying, or why the filibuster must be used.
* * *
Some have suggested that the RNC will take away the right to filibuster. Ah, and Hamas has voted to give itself a victory. Why is the US interested in spreading democracy to those who might attack Israel, but unwilling to engage in a free exchange of ideas related to this Presidential rebellion?
Free speech is good for Hamas. Bad for American Senators.
* * *
All Senate rules which prohibit Senators from raising questions related to Presidential power – it’s prudence or lawfulness – in questions related to Article II Section 2 should be struck down. Although the Senate has the power through Article I Section 5 to make its own rules, the Senate should debate during the filibuster why it is not permissible to reject a nominee during a Presidential rebellion. If the weather if favorable, perhaps the Senate may choose to opine on this rather trivial matter. Their silence should spark public comment.
* * *
The Senate filibuster and State legislatures should examine why – during this time of Presidential rebellion against the Republic – there is great pressure to end debate. Self-evidently, the goal is to fuel the rebellion not protect the Republic.
Senators Kerry and Kennedy are doing the right thing. They have carefully reviewed the record. They have seriously considered their oaths. They know their oath is to the Constitution. Their pledge – as all who support the Republic and the Constitution – is to ensure the Republic and the Constitution is preserved.
Senators Kerry and Kennedy and those who join is honoring their oaths of office are simply doing what they promised to do. Yet, in this day and age, that appears to warrant special acclaim or rebuke. No matter, for those who are easily upset by those who do their jobs are easily upset when they are forced to account for their support for the rebellion.
* * *
The Senate and States must jointly debate. This means the DNC Senators will appear to be a one-way dialog. In fact, they are monitoring the public and State level discussion. They are on the right side of the law.
Although Senators Kerry and Kennedy may have control of the Senate floor, they are not in control of the public. This is why they openly comment. They want you to comment. And they are listening. Their comments during the extended debate will show you the way forward. They will have carefully reviewed your comments. Indeed, although they may appear to be ignoring you – thy are simply showing you the way: How the solution is simple, and what must be done to do what is lawful.
While Senator and Kennedy comment, know that they have one goal in mind: To protect this nation’s constitution and ensure your liberties are preserved. Their goal is to ensure power is lawfully used; and that your orders are lawful.
Some of the questions that you may hear warrant your comment and feedback. These include:
If State governors have authorized their militias to be used in an unlawful war, does that mean your State governors have joined the rebellion?
What legal standard will be used to measure whether a state official has or has not joined the rebellion?
How will we know whether the state resources are still used after the state officials knew the material was used for an unlawful purpose?
How many overt acts against the Constitution are required to constitute a rebellion?
How many violations of the law by the NSA are required before the NSA is labeled a threat to your State’s republic?
How much information must pass from the NSA to the JTTF, and spark unlawful surveillance based on illegally obtained information, before your local officials are considered to be part of this Presidential rebellion?
How many NSA files must be destroyed – evidence of a conspiracy of a rebellion – then reconfigured using off-site information to show the NSA continues with an effort to hide evidence of the rebellion?
What debts – as discussed in the 14th Amendment, Section 4 – will your states not recognize because they support an unlawful Presidential rebellion?
What evidence does your state have – in light of 14th Amendment, Section 3 – showing that your state citizens have take oaths to support the unlawful Presidential rebellion?
How many of your state officials – who have unknowingly supported this rebellion – are at risk of losing their public office or are disqualified from the 2006 election primaries?
These are answers your states need to discuss. If they refuse, that is important information, not just for the blogosophere, but also for your fellow citizens. Who do we trust to protect your State’s Constitutional system.
The states have already been mobilized. The states know they have a role in drafting a proclamation demanding the House review these matters. It remains to be seen whether your state officials honor their oaths or – through inaction – assent to the rebellion.
Their oaths compel them to face reality and demand an investigation. Whether they honor their oaths, are fond to be in support of the rebellion, or lose their right to hold public office is a matter of law.
* * *
Filibusters are about sparking fact finding. If the Senate refuses to find facts and assent to the rebellion, then your state must address what is to be done. The states have the obligation to preserve the rule of law and act where the Federal government refuses.
The Senate filibuster must be about starting the removal process. The issues must be raised and questioned during extended debate: Is this man who is leading a rebellion fit to serve as President. Those who believe he is fit lead, should join the rebellion, and be removed from the DNC.
* * *
Some have argued about the number of votes needed to convict the President. Yet, the number is actually very small.
Consider the number of votes needed to end debate. Someone in the RNC had to think of a way to convince others in the DNC to vote the other way. They relied on non-sense.
It took non-sense to convince 10 DNC Senators to choose to end debate. Surely, using the law and facts there are 17 RNC who can be reasoned with.
Yet, the RNC and Rove would have us believe that using non-sense 10 is a bigger number than 17; that it is easier to win support with non-sense, than it is if we rely on our oaths.
Self-evidently, the RNC approach fails.
* * *
This filibuster is the first debate in the 2006 and 2008 election. It is prudent that the debate start in the very chamber best suited to challenge rebellions.
As we continue with the debates in the States and the Senate, you will have a chance to explore the President’s rebellion against the Constitution.
You will be able to ask questions about Article 1 Section 8 – giving the Congress the power to regulate people who service the United States; and contrast this with what the President is doing with the Rendition program:
The Constitution specifically says in Article II Section 2 that US judicial power shall extend in all cases where the United States is a party. This means US personnel – regulated through Article 1 Section 8 – would be defendants. Whether the Department of Justice chooses to assert the rule of law on those who support rendition, or join the President’s rebellion remains a matter of evidence.
The correct approach going forward is to have a full accounting of this rebellion.
What did the President promise to ensure there was no fact finding during Phase II?
What did the President promise or threaten to ensure the NSA’s knowledge – that there was no WMD in Iraq – did not get published for the Congressional leadership?
We will also find out the other evidence. What has the President done or not done – to resolve issues of the law in matters of illegal war, abuse, domestic spying, and outing CIA agents names.
This President’s problem is that he took an oath and defies that oath. His job – and promise to God – is to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. Your job on the internet and in your states – is to ask why we should believe he is fit to remain in office. He shows not pattern of faithfully executive the law – he openly defies the law in matters of the FISA court, and issues of torture. In fact, he openly says that the law has no meaning, despite agreeing otherwise in writing.
Self-evidently, the President moves without regard to the laws of the land. The Senate Filibuster must raise this issue and then issue a finding to the House ordering an investigation.
However, as of late, if the Senate fails to assert their oath -- and distance itself from the Presidential rebellion against the Constitution – the States have already been engaged and alerted to their options.
There is nothing the RNC can do to prevent the Constitution from being protected. The Presidential rebellion is known for what it is. The issue is whether the Senate will shut down a free exchange of ideas related to the President’s self-evident unfitness for office – and continuing rebellion – or whether the Senate will do what we supposedly went to Iraq to fight against: Continue with a rebellion of support a dictator.
* * *
Your job as a blogger is to read the Constitution. Challenge these words. And convince the world – despite the self-evident defiance of authority, this President remains fit for office.
Yet, the facts before us prove otherwise. When given a chance to explain himself, this President chose to spew forth legal non-sense. Case law he cites is selectively cherry picked.
It has been more than one month since the NYT revelations, yet we have yet to hear a credible defense. Self-evidently, there is no defense. Yet, the rebellion continues. The effort to stamp out the debate permeates the landscape.
* * *
Article IV Section 4 says that the US shall protect each state against invasion. Despite the unlawful NSA wiretapping before 9-11, the US movement failed. It seems reasonable – given the unlawful NSA wiretapping continues – that if there is imminent violence, the State will not be protected.
The State needs to ask:
What has changed
Who is really preserving the rule of law
Is the NSA in support of the rebellion or our Constitution?
Once the states debate the issue, they can then file an application to request assistance. This application goes to Congress. Congress has the power to raise and support armies.
If the President removes himself from the rebellion, he may be in a position to protect the Constitution. However, the evidence is to the contrary. The Constitution to him is merely an inconvenience. No matter, all 50 states can discuss the issue as they prepare to issue their proclamation calling for an impeachment inquiry.
The issue for the states to explore is does anyone bother to take your seriously; or have many others joined the rebellion and are assenting to the unlawful use of military power and conduct in violation of authority – the Constitution.
The answers can be easily acquired. The issue isn’t simply the facts and evidence; but whether the public servants – we have a duty to preserve the republic – are willing to provide evidence, or excuses. This is where the filibuster comes in. Now is the time to send a signal to all citizens in all 50 states – it is time to mobilize your states, watch the filibuster, and being your state proclamation demanding an impeachment.
* * *
To be clear, with time, the voters will have information to know whether those who have joined the rebellion are fit or unfit for office. They will have this information before they go to the polls. Watch closely whether your state does or does not raise the issue, or demand answers. Notice well whether your leadership faces reality, or shuts down debate.
Why are open elections and debates good enough for Hamas, but not Americans?
Why are Americans fighting in Iraq to spread democracy to Hamas, but it’s not good enough in the States?
* * *
Perhaps the President can explain himself. Yet, this many weeks after the NYT article, and we’ve heard nothing but rubbish. A reasonable person would conclude that there is no justification, and there is no basis to justify confidence in leadership. One who unlawfully uses power, cannot credibly argue that the Senate assent to the use of that power. We need not consider the details or qualifications of the nominee.
* * *
Yes, the DNC can censure and expel those members who join the President’s rebellion. The State Governors – as per the law – can replace that wayward Senator with one who is willing to let the Senate exercise its Article II Section 2 powers and review the president’s power.
Power is something the barons questioned when they went to King John. They compelled him to assent to the Magna Charta. In 1776, King George would not discuss the issue. Today, in 2006 the Senate attempts to raise the same.
But unlike before where the Colonies rebelled – today it is the President who leads this rebellion. Unlike the days before the Magna Charta, we have the document which tells us what to do: Impeach and remove the leader of a rebellion for office. Those who joined him can and should be removed from office, forever banned from holding any office. That is, unless the Congress chooses to let them return with 2/3 votes assenting. Perhaps, if the weather is favorable the Congress might wish to read the Constitution related to these matters.
* * *
It is up to the RNC to justify why they should be trusted. They are in rebellion against the Constitution. And the Federal government refuses to act. The states have been mobilized. They know the issue. And there is nothing stopping them.
Even if the Senate refuses to review the matters related to the President’s self-evident rebellion and defiance of the Constitution, the States can move and take action. They can issue a proclamation calling for the House to investigate. But there is nothing the RNC can do to bury this proclamation in committee. The proclamation arrives with the understanding that even if there is no consensus, the results must timely be provided to the House for a vote.
Then Americans will see who is with the President’s rebellion, and who is asserting their oath.
1 Mar 2006 is the deadline. Either way, the RNC is in a no-win situation. There is nothing they can do to stop this rebuke of their rebellion. Even simple minded people, those they publicly rebuke with silly comments on the internet have awoken to this non-sense.
The RNC words are not credible. They have no defense. The only thing Americans can do is simply monitor how far out of touch they are with their oath of office, facts, and the rule of law.
The RNC has no defense. Their only option is to use non-sense. But there is a reason for the states to be concerned. Recall the RNC internal memo. It states clearly that they would benefit if there was a terrorist attack.
The states need to ask why this terror attack would occur – if, as we believe, we have an unlawful NSA program monitoring all these communications. The question for the states to ask: If the NSA knew about something affecting the State’s form of government, or was related to an imminent threat of violence – would the NSA do anything; or would we have what happened with the attacks on the RNC offices during the 2004 election – blaming someone else.
9-11 is fair warning. The NSA was already engaged in unlawful domestic surveillance. The President knew something to order this monitoring. But he would have us believe that he didn’t figure out something.
Yet, the President’s oath – and the job of the US government in Article IV Section 4 – is to protect the States from invasion. Even by sky pirates, which through Article 1 Section 8 – Congress is given the power to regulate, punish – much to the President’s annoyance.
Again, the issue is that the NSA engages in unlawful activity – but we are asked to believe despite their presence, they failed over 9-11. The States must ask: What are we getting in exchange for these violations of our rights – certainly not protection. The issue must be: What is to be done.
The simple answer is to demand an inquiry. But know those in the rebellion have no intention of getting answers. Thus, we must issue a state proclamation, and give fair warning to the world: The federal government refuses to move on the basis of reality, but delusions.
Fair warning – this government is not making policies connected to reality, as are the accusations of Iran If there was evidence of a nuclear program – which the DoD is supposedly targeting – surely the White House would provide this evidence of the IAEA.
But we have the same with Iraq – accusations about Iran, but no evidence. Yet, DoD planning continues. The States should ask what targets – self-evidently unrelated to any nuclear threat – they plan to target, while ignoring the UCMJ over issues of war crimes and targets unrelated to military purposes.
The states must ask whether they are supporting war crimes, directly or indirectly. This President, rather than explain himself over WMD, wants to blame those who told him the truth – there’s no evidence.
It remains to be seen what the President plans to do if the States tell him the truth: You are not fit to lead, and this President’s rebellion against the Constitution must be stopped by all lawful means.
But this President refuses to assent to the peaceful forums. He defies the courts. He will not permit debate. He demands a single vote, without considering whether the power he uses to make that appointment is imprudently used.
Self-evidently, this President remains in rebellion. This President imprudently uses power to stifle discussion and knowledge of his defiance of authority – the Constitution to which he took an oath.
When power is not lawfully used, we no longer need to assent or consent to that power when we have the choice. Our constitution is an agreement. In exchange for giving up our power, this President promised – before God – to protect our rights and this document. He has failed.
When someone has an agreement – and they do not honor that agreement – then we are no longer bound by that agreement. We promised to give up our power, and he promised to protect our rights. Thus, the states need to decide – what is to be done when we no longer can trust him to lawfully use power – but he uses power to defy authority and spread rebellion.
* * *
Senator Byrd should explain himself on the Senate floor. Yes, I question his integrity. He whines about the President’s assertion of power of the Patriot Act. Yet, at this moment – when the President’s power is question, why not use the filibuster to force a debate on whether this rebellion will continue?
There is no better time. For if the “resolution” to this “debate issue” is to end the debate – the public should know: The rebellion has infected the minds of the Senate. No longer do they truly wish to use power – as they inherently have in Article II Section 2 -- to question the President’s power. Rather, the DNC wishes to whine about problems, but not put the sword of a filibuster to the throat of those who lead this rebellion against your authority – the Constitution to which you took an oath.
Explain your inconstancy. Why are you upset at the President over the Patriot act, but will not compel this President to appear before the House, and respond to charges of impeachment.
The time to act is now. The RNC is in a no-win situation. There is nothing the President can do to stop the states from issuing a proclamation. You know the Senate rules: they compel issues of the constitution take priority. Your oath to Article II Section 2 gives the Senate the inherent power to question the President’s power at this key moment. And despite your well placed and inspiring speeches over the corrupt uses of power, we see nothing.
That is not impressive. It is reasonable to question your statesmanship. And your integrity. And whether you choose to assent to your oath, and compel answers, or whether you want to pass, and not assert Article II Section 2.
We do not assent to the leader of this rebellion – nor do we assent to his use of power – nor do we assent to how that power is used. We need not consider the qualifications of the nominee when the Article II Section 2 issue of power remains in doubt.
Yes, there is great doubt. The NYT article raises reasonable questions about the rebellion. Yet, despite many weeks of drivel, we have nothing to substantially explain or warrant confidence this man should remain in office. Rather, he admits his actions are in defiance of his authority – the Constitution. Bluntly, the president has openly stated – in as many words – that he is in rebellion against the Constitution and the 4th Amendment.
The reasons do not matter. The only relevant issue is whether this leader should be removed from office with action at the Federal level, or whether the imminent state percolation will trigger the inquiry. The President knows he defies the Constitution; and that his actions are more than a casual error. They remain part of a consistent pattern of conduct. And more remains to be understood. Thus, the Senate should – during the extended debate – get straight answers: Why should a leader of a rebellion remain in office. Leave it to those in the other side of the aisle to defend. But do not simply pass up the opportunity to challenge them: Why should this rebellion not be put down?
Make them explain. Force them to comment. Even a peep. Even refusing to discuss the issue is all the states need to know to trigger action.
There is nothing the RNC can do to stop this. The RNC is powerless to stop all 50 states from acting to put down this Presidential rebellion. The issue will be: Will the voters have confidence in your; and will the DNC be found to be in support of the rebellion or in support of their oaths and Constitution?
There is one right answer. Join the Senators in filibustering. Anyone in the DNC who choose to join this President’s rebellion – by refusing to discuss this issue – should be expelled from the Senate, sent home, and have the States leadership find a suitable replacement. Someone who, despite the unfavorable weather can tell the difference between a rebellion and an oath of office.
The filibuster must be used to force this issue: Compel the Senate to debate why this President’s rebellion should be allowed to continue, or whether it should end by removing him from office. If the Senate refuses to remove him from office, the rebellion will continue.
The states are watching. They have already planned to issue a proclamation. They remain skeptical of your commitment to put your oath before your desire to defy the rule of law. Your job is to honor Article IV Section 4 and defend their states against this rebellion. if you fail or choose not to defend them, then you have done more than dishonor yourself. You have joined in the active rebellion by those who choose to move without regard to the rule of law. That is important for the voters to understand. They are watching.
You have two choices: Join the rebellion or join the filibuster. One will evade answers, but bring shame; the second will force a discussion, and possibly find answers. Either way, the choice is difficult. But the right answer is to stand with those in your party, and bravely march forward knowing that you are doing what must be done.
Do not fear what the American public thinks. The polls are not relevant. Your oath is important. Those in the media will be slow to understand. But your job is not to convince them that the oath is or isn’t to be asserted; rather, your job is simply to discuss what must be done to stop this President’s rebellion.
Either you will act, or the States will. The deadline is 1 Mar 2006. The filibuster is the mechanism to force an answer. If we do not hear an answer, then the rebellion is reasonably presumed to be spreading, and the states should move with all due speed to request of Congress assistance to prevent what could be an imminent attack on their Constitution. The NSA knows what is happening. Your job is to use the filibuster as a circuit break and compel the president to end the rebellion. If he refuses to assent, then the senate must use the extended debate to explore what form it wishes to explain to the House that an investigation must start.
In the mean time, the President should be told: We do not assent to your power; and we will not approve any appointments made in the wake of this unlawful rebellion, and we do not consent to the use of your power.
Going forward, this nation remains a nation of laws. It has one Constitution. And it has many states. Each individual has the ability to freely make up their mind: Does the leadership honor their oath and stop this rebellion; or should they later be denied the opportunity to hold office.
The states have an important job to do. And that is why you in the blogsophere must know that each of your individual voices – even one – is important. Speak. Know that the Constitution is on your side. That Congress – through Article 1 Section 8 – has the lawful power to make rules related to suppressing rebellions. It is time for Congress to review that legislation, and immediately review of the Presidents’ rebellion against the Constitution.
The Senate must act. Or the States shall act. There will be an act.
* * *
Ending the filibuster is a mistake. It will send the wrong signal. The filibuster permits discussion of the President’s rebellion. Ending the debate will incorrectly signal we assent to the use of this power.
Article II Section 2 is the Senate’s inherent authority to question the President’s power. At any time. For any reason. Without explanation.
Any demand that this be an “up or down” vote misses the point. The issue is not the qualifications of the nominee. The issue is the power of the President. We do not consent to the use of this power, regardless the reasons or motives.
The RNC has yet to explain why the rush, why must the debate be ended, or why the extended debate cannot ask questions related to Constitutional duties the Senate has in Article II Section 2. yet, woven within the fabric of the tapestry – once though to be the exclusive playground of a rebellious President – is the Senate’s inherent authority to question the power of a rebel.
The advise and consent clause is an illusion. It does not require the Senate to look narrowly at issues the RNC chooses to focus on. Rather, Article II Section 2 gives the Senate the power to not assent to the President’s power in matters related to public acts – treaties and appointments. The filibuster is the tool to refuse to assent to this power. The filibuster is the forum to discuss the problems with the President’s rebellion. The Filibuster is the appropriate and lawful means – which the Constitution recognizes – as the lawful way that a rebellion can be called for what it is: A strike at the authority behind your oath of office – the very Constitution.
* * *
The sword is the filibuster. And it can be lawfully used to discuss matters which Article II Section 2 expressly grants to the Senate to exercise: To discuss whether they assent to the President’s use of power.
There is no reasonable Senate rule that prevents the Senate from reviewing a rebellion, or making inquiry into whether the President’s powers are or are not lawfully being exercised. Rather, the extended debate is the time to raise questions and let the States know – if we in the Senate cannot stop this rebellion, you must issue a proclamation asking the House to intervene.
Article II Section 2 is a broad, sweeping and fatal check on Presidential power. The extended debate is the appropriate time to question this rebellion, and ask why the president’s power should be consented to. There is no answer. There are only questions.
It is irrelevant that the RNC has successfully put the power before the facts or law – finding answers about the rebellion after the decision is made to assent to that rebellion. The filibuster should reverse the order: Delay a decision about the rebellion and whether to assent to that power, until after the facts about the NSA rebellion are known.
If the Senate fails to delay the decision using the filibuster, you will have no leverage to mandate that the White House and NSA responses about their rebellion will amount to anything.
To date, the Senate has been given non-sense. Why does the Senate choose to assent to this rebellion or recognize this power? That is an issue for the states to discuss. Now they know: The Senate is willing to join in the rebellion, not stop a reckless use of power, and fails to assert the rule of law, and does not wish to exercise its inherent authority in Article II Section 2 to refuses to assent to this President’s rebellion against the constitution – the source of your authority, and the reason you hold office.
There is no higher priority. There is nor grander calling. Now is the time to compel your peers in the Senate to either join you in a filibuster or tell the State legislatures to prepare a proclamation – and for the Governors to find new Senators. The existing Senators are not willing to honor their oath, or use their power to refuses to assent to the President’s rebellion. Now is the time for the Senators to speak to their constituents not with an ear toward fear, but with an ear toward hope.
It is out there. The Constitution is alive. In the threads of the Constitution is the little noticed power of the Senate to strike back – like a viper – at the one who will continue this rebellion. The Senators must listen. Not to be fearful, but to notice when the time is right. It approaches. Do not pass up the opportunity to recognize the RNC for what it is: It has been taken over by people who cannot defend their leader. And for that, it is your job to remain calm and trust the people to make an informed decision.
All that we ask is that you assert your authority – through Article II Section 2 – and refuse to assent to the President’s rebellion. Then direct the House to start an investigation, find facts, and evaluate with another debate whether you will or will not put an end to this Presidential rebellion. If your peers refuse to act, or they shut down the debate, then the public must know that the Federal Government has no plans to protect this republic. You will have not adhered to your lawful duty – your oath – to honor what it in Article IV Section 4: To preserve our Republic.
The voters must know. The voters will know. The voters do know.
You must trust them to have faith. And to also know that they will realize the scope of the rebellion. Yes, the RNC may paint you as dastardly creatures. But is it not lovely to be called something that will simply mean nothing. They say nothing of substance because they have nothing of substance to offer.
It is our job to find facts, find out what’s happened, then chart a path forward. It will take time. But the voters need to know: You are willing to assert your inherent authority in Article II Section 2 and compel this rebellion to end. There is no lawful requirement that you narrow your review to a narrow list. The Senate through Article II Section 2 has the inherent authority to question the President’s power – especially now with a filibuster – and now when the rebellion is spreading. There is no better time to tell the world: We no longer assents to this unlawful rebellion, we rebuke this president, and will shall not waiver in our obligation to the States to protect their form of government. Anything else would be to ask us to assent to what is at odds with our oath. If we fail, then the voters would find others who are willing to assert Article II Section 2 when it is easy, so that when times are more difficult the voters will have confidence we will do what must be done to preserve the rule of law.
* * *
The question for the states is to ask: Who are our leaders?
The filibuster tells us. Those in the Senate who refuse to end this rebellion need not be seen as moving in compliance with their oaths of office.
Self-evidently, if the leadership fails, we need new leadership. One who will put their oath of office first, and use inherent Constitutional power in Article II Section 2 to put down an unlawful Presidential rebellion against our Constitution.
Those who join the rebellion need not be invited to the DNC caucus. You have already voted against fact finding, and are with the rebellion. That you may do so again is of no consequence. This rebuke will signal the states to find candidates willing to put their oath – and lawful use of power -- before a Presidential rebellion.
* * *
Bluntly, it remains curious for the blogsophere to compare what the DNC said about the Patriot Act and what they’re doing today. Some said that they didn’t read the patriot Act. Today, they whine when the rebellion spreads.
They should be rebuked for not asserting the inherent legislative power in Article II Section 2 while legalizes extended debate – filibuster – about presidential power.
We’ve had many examples. In the 1960 against Vietnam; against Truman in the 1950s over Korea; against the Patriot Act in the wake of the unlawful NSA program. Each time, no filibuster – no debate, just assenting to a reckless use of power.
Today,, we shall see. Whether the DNC will learn from the mistakes of the RNC, and finally use the filibuster to compel open discussion about a Presidential rebellion against our Constitution. If they fail, the States have already been put on notice they can issue proclamation.
How do I know. For this is what I have done.
The states are ready. Looking for an excuse to tell the world: The fools in the Senate have joined the rebellion, and assent to reckless use of power – even when they have the inherent authority in Article II Section 2 to do otherwise.
Yes, the Senate can become a benevolent leader. It can challenge a President. And it can compel the House to launch an investigation. If the Senate refuses to act, and end this rebellion, the States are promised, ready to make a mockery of the weak Senate, unwilling to put down this President’s unlawful rebellion against the Constitution.
Give the States an excuse to act. They are ready.
The solution is no longer up to you. Your choice is whether you want to assert your power, or assent to this rebellion.
The public knows. The question remains: Whether you have joined the rebellion, or are simply unwilling to assert your oath of office, and vote to continue speaking over matters related to things the blogosphere is already buzzing about.
It’s not as though you can keep this in a bottle. We know. The question will be whether the Senate chooses to act, or wait for the weather to improve and wait until someone in the White House just happens to cooperate. Maybe. If that’s what they want.
Meanwhile, the states continue their work. They are ready. Where the Senate has the chance to check this rebellion, the citizens will have new hope: We now can call this creature what it is: The Senate has joined the rebellion.
You are either with the Constitution, or you are with this rebellious tyrant.
There is only once right answer.
The States are ready to make the right choice.
* * *
The DNC leadership in the Senate and House must coordinate. Recall many eons ago, your branch was divided because you were too powerful under one roof.
The founders divided you to make it difficult to consolidate power. However, today we have a new problem. Today, we have the opposite. Unlike the days when the Parliament or Congress might have been too powerful, today we have open rebellion and the Congress unwilling or unable to unite.
Recall Vice President Gore’s remarks. He spoke of the oath. He has one objective: To preserve this Constitution.
Your job in the DNC leadership is to ask yourselves: Are you willing to unit your forces within the Senate and House.
There is a way. You must be willing to use the filibuster to compel the House to act and rebuke this President. But the action cannot be simply to stall. Rather, the Senate must openly debate the matters they will soon have to confront: Whether this President’s rebellion can be contained, and how to remove him from office.
The key will be to discuss this issue openly with the RNC. They will defy you. Know this is a good sign. They feel safe to lash out. Know that the end is sight, although it may seem uncertain.
Remain confident, you are not alone. You will be getting more feedback. And the RNC will do things that will amaze you. Do not be alarmed. This is to e expected.
Your job is to simply recognize that you are seeing what a tyrant does as he lashes out. This is why your cooperating and leadership is important.
Bluntly, the Filibuster must be the first strike. This will awaken the nation. And it will give the Senate floor the focus that is needed: To openly discuss the issues of how their president has led a rebellion, and has used power to lead this rebellion.
Some in the RNC will quickly say that you are “going off topic.” Your job is to remind them of the Constitution. Article II Section 2 gives the Senate the inherent authority not to rubber stamp an nominee; but to consider whether the Senate assents to the president’s power-on its own, as a separate issue, apart from the nominee.
Read the Article II Section 2 clause closely. You will see something. “He shall have Power, on advise and consent of . . . “ Notice something. There is no “and” after the “Power.” That means the “advise and consent” clause is linked not only to the act, but to the underlying power behind that act. You do not have to assent to the power or the act.
Then read further. Look later. Look at the later “advise and consent” clause. There is another surprise. Notice the language, “and on advise and consent.” Notice the difference, there is a change.
The key is to notice the “and”. One of the “advise and consent” clause – the latter one – refers to consenting related to appointments. But keep in mind the structure of the entire clauses.
It is a simple sentence with a semi-colon. This means that the Framers have done something very curious. They have specifically linked “Power” with three functions: [a] treaties; [b] nomination; and [c] Appointments.
The issue for the Senate to debate is to ask, “What is lawfully prohibiting the Senate from reviewing the President’s power – and whether we consent/assent/ refuse to assent to that power” as an equally important measure?
Self-evidently, the language in the Constitution is clear: The President’s actions are contingent upon the Senate consenting. If the power is in question – as it is over the NYT’ revelations of the NSA program, and the subsequent legal non-sense from the Whit House – then we need not consider the qualifications of the appointment, but simply say, “We do not consent to the use of this power.”
It is time to send the nomination back to the President, then send a notice to the House to start an investigation.
* * *
Correctly, the RNC faithful will attempt to say this in not allowed. But this is the trap and the bait they are taking.
Think broadly. As the RNC rebukes the DNC over this filibuster – and more specifically the reference to Article II Section 2 – the trap is simple. The RNC must – as their only means of offense – is to assert that the “clauses are not meant to be that way.”
Indeed, that is arguable.
But the trap is to notice what the RNC says. Because no matter what the RNC says – over the inherent Article II Section 2 inherent authority power of the Senate to check the President’s power – the RNC will have to do something that will wholly destroy the president’s legal defense.
Consider this. The RNC will assert the Article II Section 2 clauses “aren’t meant to be read that way.” Curious, that’s something that the President said he could do. So why is the RNC now saying that “clauses cannot be interpreted one way” – while explicit clause in Article 1 Section 8 – related to FISA and ability of Congress to make rules governing the NSA – are to be interrelated another way?
The trap is that the RNC has to admit – the arguments they’re making to deny the Senate’s power is at odds with the President’s defenses.
Either the President will have to assert a legal position that is inconstant with his actions; or he will have to argue the Senate cannot do smoothing that is there – while at the same time having no defense for the greater twists of absurd logic to arrive at his conclusion.
In other words, the Article II Section 2 is not a pure Executive playground. As we’ve said before, the Constitution is a tapestry with many opposing threads. The power of the Constitution is that the competing threads, when interwoven, become the greater whole. Hidden within Article II Section 2 is the inherent power of the Senate to do exactly what the President says only he can do: Check power, stop action, and refuse to assent to power.
Bluntly, by asserting legal arguments, and making written statements to Congress, what the President and he legal counsel have done are boxed them selves into a corner.
The time to strike is at hand: Use the filibuster to discuss this issue: Article II Section 2 is not an unique Executive power; rather, there is something inherent for the Senate to exercise.
* * *
Do not be afraid. Yes, you are not in your comfort zone. But rest assured, that the forces that are with the rule of law can reason, and they will see the prudence of your action. Your job is to have faith in the states, that the public will see – regardless their political affiliation – that they can read, understand, and form simple judgments.
The simple judgment: We need more information before we can make a decision to assent to power.
And the plan forward is to use the filibuster as the rehearsal for the impeachment hearing and subsequent trial before the Senate. Yes, your RNC opponents have every goal in making you believe that it will never happen.
But think again about the numbers. If you have the discipline in the DNC to compel all 50 to vote to convict – with threat of expulsion for not honoring their oath to put down this Presidential election – you only need 17 RNC Senators.
You may believe that this will never happen. Well, there is another surprise. As you may have already heard, there is an effort underway to forward a state proclamation demanding action. At the same time, the States also know that they have the power to call into question – and request the Senate expel their Senator – if they are part of this rebellion.
Then, the job of the Senate will be to vote. Again, the numbers are small: Only 17 are needed to put down this rebellion.
Think also in terms of what the RNC has done. Using plain non-sense, they have convinced someone the DNC to not assert Article II Section 2. It seems reasonable that – given the prospect of state action, and a proclamation, that the Senators will have to take action to put down this presidential rebellion.
If they fail to act, and are found to be in support of this rebellion, then they will lose all right to hold public office. To get back in, they’ll have to do exactly what just happened: Get 2/3 vote.
So ask: Why is the world – namely, the Senate – believing that non-sense will sway 10 Senators to support rebellion; but the rule of law, fact finding, and real threat of expulsion for supporting a rebellion cannot get 7 more, namely 17?
That is the question the Senate must debate. Why is it harder to sway people to assert the oath of office – and rebuke a president for a rebellion – that it is not give up your right to speak freely about issues of public concern?
That is what the Senate must discuss. Why are we unwilling to trust the rule of law, fact finding, and open debate?
Self-evidently, the answer is that the process failed over WMD: The NSA knew there was no WMD, but the facts are not there.
Thus, the way forward, is to remind the Senate leadership that the goal of the extended debate must be the trigger to discus the problem, and the solutions. This is how the Declaration of Independence and Constitution work: The declaration listed the problems, and the Constitution solved the problems.
The Senate extended debate must outline the issues, guide the House, and then rapidly bring this rebellion to a close by removing this President. It must be swift. It must be well organized, and the DNC leadership must listen to the RNC responses. They will tell you things about why this can or cannot happen. Let them talk. Invite them into the extended debate, and know that they feel safe to express themselves.
Your job is to recognize their concerns, accept that they are reluctant, and are worried. Acknowledge their concerns. Put aside politics. Treat them as peers. They are honorable people. Their only hope is to do what they believe is right.
That is why they have supported their President. For these many days he has guided them. He has lit the torch. And he has brought them to a new place.
But the sad truth is that this is all a lie. The President was monitoring before 9-11 – so he must have known something. What is this? We need to find out. And the President obviously wants to do something – it is the job of the Congress to discuss what is going on.
If you do not wish to discuss this by your own choice – and listen to the views of others – then we’re simply back to where we are with Iraq and the WMD issue: Illusory timelines, false reasons to act, and promises of “We’ll get to that later.” Phase II shows us later never arrives.
It’s time to draw the line in the sand. Call this what it is: A Pesidentially-directed rebellion against the Constitution.
* * *
The filibuster is the excellent moment to force these issues into the open. The filibuster will compel the President to justify inherent authority; and remind us – once again – why the explicit clauses are to be ignored, but the twisted clauses are given deference.
The public knows the explanations do not make sense. The answer is not to walk away in a huff. But simply smile: You have more evidence and feedback that the president’s rebellion is exposed. Your job is to remember your position: You are not simply a Senator, you are a voice to those in the NSA who are under pressure to be silent.
You must give them hope. Remind them that they are honorable people. And that they have been asked to do something very important. Now is the time to reach out to them, and encourage them to think of solutions. Perhaps the congress needs to have an NSA-like monitoring system to check the Executive – and the SNA employees would like to work for Congress. If that is the solution, then think of the filibuster as the prime opportunity to announce a framework to develop a system that will do just that.
The filibuster doesn’t have to called for what it is – a discussion. Rather, it can be structured as a framework to solve problems. The way forward is to open the debate, call this what it is – A presidential rebellion – and remind the President he cannot stop the public from discussing this issue at the State level.
Senators, you have one objective: To protect this constitution. It is not as if we have a crisis. Rather, we simply have a small matter of a President leading rebellion. The Congress already has the inherent authority – in Article 1 Section 8 – to address this issue: That is the matter of piracy. Bluntly, it is time to put into practice all the explicitly clauses that the President has ignored.
Time to gather facts through debate and investigation – By ordering an investigation.
Time to have a charge of a crime with a grand jury against the said crime – with an Impeachment.
Time to impose a trial by jury – the Senate.
The issue isn’t whether the Senate is or isn’t’ controlled by one party or the other. The issue is what confidence will the Senators have that the public won’t figure this out.
Self-evidently, the 2006 campaign season has already started, Within a few short hours, the public figured out how to draft a proclamation and is awaiting word to have it delivered.
That was done within a matter of hours. Going forward, we have nine  months until the election. That is plenty of time to find new candidates, suppress this rebellion, get the word to the voters that the Senate is asserting Article II Section 2, and we can continue.
It’s that simple. All that’s needed is a little faith that the open debate on the senate floor will be used for what it is: To start this process, to stand up, assert Article II Section 2, and let the world know: We didn’t do this when we should have, but we’re finally going to assert our power.
* * *
The public and the Senate are on the same side on this. The issue has nothing to do with the candidate or their qualification. The issue is whether the Article II Section 2 powers will be used now – through the lawful use of an open debate on Presidential power before consenting to the use of that power – or whether the States will take action.
Either way, the RNC is in a no-win situation. And they know this. Thus, the RNC is making this about to be something else.
But, that’s what the RNC always does. Every time there’s a problem, the RNC says “this is new.” Yet, a plan reading of Article II Section 8, tell us the issues with AlQueda were already discussed: Piracy. This means that Congress has the inherent authority to define how the pirates – namely AlQueade -- should or should be treated.
Also within Article III Section 2 is the requirement for persons – not explicitly American citizens – to be given a trial. But there is a key word. On “said” charges. That means the charges have to be said, not simply asserted, or hidden in a National security letter.
The same goes with the right to a speedy trial. How many years has it been for Padilla and Hamdi? This is absurd.
Overall, the RNC approach to their self-evident desire to spread the rebellion is to make a mess of things, and then blame others. But the answers to their problems are in the very document they continue to rebel against, and which you have sworn an oath – the Constitution.
* * *
The RNC has a big problem right now. And they know it. First, their membership knows the President defies the rule of law, and the issue of war crimes is real.
Also, the membership knows that anytime they speak on a matter, that they face a threat.
This is good to know. With time, we will learn more. All the public needs to know is that there are forces inside the RNC who are developing a plan to gather evidence. There are efforts underway to organize. The problem the RNC leadership has is that despite the threats, suspicion and harassment, they can’t figure out who these people are. Ah, but they are well placed. And remember the small matter with NSA and Bolton. Surprise, it’s continuing with GCHQ. And there are transcripts.
* * *
The focus of the nation should be simple: The Constitution.
The job of the Senate is clear: To call it like it is -- A presidential rebellion.
If we need new leadership in the White House and RNC, the membership is open to that. If the RNC needs to work with the DNC to expel members of the Congress who support this unlawful Presidential rebellion against the Constitution – so be it.
But the voters know they have an option. If the congress will not act, the States will. And we have 9 months to share information and make informed judgments: Who is in rebellion; who needs to be removed from leadership; and what is to be done.
The job of the Senate – during extended debate – is to guide people to the clauses in the Constitution that makes the case for the American people. – that the President should be removed from office, and that the rebellion shall end peacefully, or shall be compelled through lawful Congressional action to be put down using force.
It’s as simple as that.
Congress has the inherent power to raise and support armies. The Congress can train a new army or militia to lawfully enter the NSA, seize the equipment, and compel the contractors to appear before Congress. The objective of the Congress should be – before that is done – is to publicly discuss what is to be done.
Again, the issue is unlawful use of military forces and intelligence gathering. The way forward isn’t to ask what is or isn't to be done to just fix FISA – that may be sufficient as it is. Rather, the way forward may be to thick about a new way of looking at checks and balances.
Think back to the days of the founding fathers. They used things like paper and spoken words to communicate. They had no telephones. Nor did the radio exist.
Today, there is a solution to the NSA rebellion. The solution is to give Congress the same power – to use NSA-like monitoring against the Executive – and check his power: Is he lawfully using the NSA; or is the NSA doing something it shouldn’t?
Congress has the power to raise this militia, finance it, and make it something that is a department under the Congressional control. Rammer, Congress has the power to make rules to permit it to do things that ensure the laws are enacted and followed. Thus, if you look at Article 1 Section 8 – look at the last clause – you’ll see the sweeping statement related to “We can make laws to let us do what we have to do.” That bluntly means that Congress – in order to put down a rebellion or check the President through Article II Section 2 – can lawfully enact legislation calling for a Congressional department that is just like the NSA, and is established to provide to Congress information which the Executive branch refuses to provide: Data on training; information on readiness inspections; status on the troops; information about whether the commanders are or are not governing their prisons in a manner the Congress has stated in the law, or UCMJ.
Again, the important issue to point out is that the Congress isn’t in the position to direct or command the military. Rather, Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to govern the military. Governance implies getting access to information, reviewing, and engaging in other activities related to monitoring.
Which brings us back to the founding fathers, their paper an spoken words. When the Framers first created the departments, they did not envision a day when people’s mail and words would be viewed without a warrant.
Today, what’s needed is a method to check the Joint Staff: Are you lying to us about what the NSA is or isn’t’ doing?
The System to develop this NSA-like monitoring system – which the Congress would point at the Executive – is fairly simple. It would be completely independent of the NSA and Executive Branch, and their primary job would be to monitor the interlocking of the President and his staff to root out evil plans like Rendition, bad memos that John You related to lawful use of torture, or other things which we have yet to learn from the bowels of NSA and the cupboards of the dirty White House cabinet.
* * *
Again, let’s be clear where we are. We’re at the end of January 2006. We have yet to have the NSA hearings. The objective of the Senate should be to lay the foundation to end this rebellion, outline a plan for the voters for the 2006 elections, and pave the way to remove this rebel from office, and swiftly implement a credibly system of checks and balances using NSA-like intercepts.
The point is that we are not in a crisis Rather, the RNC because of their foolishness – has been unable to put down discussion of what is going on, and they have fragmented.
Rather than assent to continued non-sense, the filibuster needs to be what it is designed to do: Discuss, get feedback, and then move forward based on prudence. They key is to trust the process.
That, I realize, is difficult. But bear with me. Keep in mind, although things seem bleak, or confusing, there are thousands of people around the globe who are in the NSA who are monitoring what is going on. They are disgusted by what is happening, but they have no voice.
The job of the Senate is to speak to the NSA employees – and stop trying to look at this in terms of numbers or rules. Throw away the discussion notes about the poll numbers. We will speak merely of what will move their souls.
* * *
The DNC is in a no-lose situation. It is up to the RNC to explain why they want to shut down a debate about Presidential power. It is up to the RNC to explain why they want to silence people.
Hamas voted. Why can’t Americans do the same?
The RNC has one goal: To shut down the debate using tricks and non-sense. They demand false deadlines. They deny information. They take no action. They use smear to silence others.
Small problem. We know. And there’s nothing they can do to stop the 50 states. Unless they use force. That is why the Senate must remind the states that now is the time to debate these issues, and if they feel – after reading Article IV Section 4 – that there is potential violence, then the Congress has the power to raise an army and put down this Presidential rebellion.
The goal should be to remind the public there is a way forward. And remind the public that the RNC excuses and threats at this juncture are without merit, simply because of their past conduct over issues of WMD< Iraq, rendition, abuse, Plame, and Abu Ghraib.
Now we have the NSA. Thus, a reasonable person before any Grand Jury or group of voters could credibly conclude that the witness – namely the RNC – has no credibility. Thus, the public is most likely to figure this out.
Think of the problem we had before the Iraq Invasion. People supported action because they had bogus information. But now that we know about the NSA program, the voters are against the President. The only option the RNC has is to use RNC-paid-voting centers. Fine. The reality is at odds with the RNC, and the reason they screen people who attend the meetings with the President.
The public knows. That’s why its important for the Senate to discuss this, close ranks, continue to support an extended debate, and outline a plan to resolve this rebellion. There is one answer: The Constitution.
* * *
The filibuster will compel the RNC to show their cards and permit the pubic to explore the issues with the Senate. Pay no attention to matters of who is or isn’t watching. Yes, people are working and busy. But there are people who can read transcripts, and sift through the editing to find out what is going on.
Trust the process to get the information and simply say what must be said: The Presidential rebellion will soon end, either voluntarily or through the lawful use of force in the wake of a House investigation.
Either way, there is a deadline: 1 March 2006. The states are prepared to act.
* * *
The filibuster will draw a line in the sand. It will give the public fair notice: Who relents to the RNC nonsense; and what the reasons are for their fatigue.
There is no higher priority now that the Senate asserting the right to debate: What reasons do the Senators have for making statements off the Senate floor? Recall, the statements on the Senate floor are protected; but they can be held to account for other statements on their websites.
The Senate must simply choose to assert its authority and mandate each Senator reaffirm their oath in writing, under penalty of perjury; With the full reminder of the 14th Amendment and rebellion – if they join the rebellion they shall be denied office.
It is time. Go to the Senate archives, look for something related to oaths of office, and line all 100 senators up to publicly retake their oath, and have a debate about the President’s fitness for office.
Yes, it is time. Force the Senate to raise the issue.
I’ll say it. They don't want to retake their oaths because they do not wish to be insulted. Well, that’s fine. They deserve to be insulted. They have insulted their honor, integrity, and oaths by letting this ridiculousness continue.
It is time to – under penalty of perjury – recertify the oaths and let the states know that the public expects action on the issues. If Senators are not willing to take an oath – call for a rule change – as that there be a new rule compelling senators to monthly take an oath. See who apposes that. Then comment. Why do the Senators refuse to certify their oath?
A reasonable person would conclude that they don’t want to be reminded. Yet, the Senators who have defied their oath – and ignored Article II Section 2 – show they have to be reminded. In fact, it would be prudent to put this in the voting platforms across the nation: We shall monthly review our Constitution, and certify in writing that we have read it.
But why stop there. Why not make each member of Congress hand-write each word of the document in legible handwriting 10 times at home; and then appear with all ten compies – certified to be hand written, not copies or laser printed – and make them as one body hand write the document on the Senate floor while the C-Span cameras roll.
This is not to be an insult. Rather, it is to be a reminder that we have read the Constitution, and that we have though about every word.
I will guarantee you that as you hand write the document, you will have ideas about Rendition, Hadmii, Plame, CIA torture an detention in Eastern Europe, the lies about Iraq, evidence over WMD, and many others things which warrant review.
Each of these ideas and thoughts should be put on a piece of power – or entered into you laptop and you write the words – these will be the ideas you have, and share them with your colleagues.
You must go through the process of sitting down and looking at each word. And you must let the public know that you have read the document, and are aware of the Consequences for continued support of this Presidential rebellion.
Next, what must happen is the Senate must debate and come to some sort of opinion of a way forward: What is to be done, what is the investigation plan, and how do w proceed. Again, the point is to crate a framework for the public and House to follow, and then swiftly come to a conclusion: what happened, how will this rebellion be ended, and what must be done to remove this man from office.
The point is that the debate should be about achieving one end: Creating a plan which at last 67 senators will agree to – that will outline the evidence needed to warrant removal from office. Until the Senate Commits to that plan – then there is no reason to listen to the Senate. The States have already drafted similar plans. This was done in a matter of hours.
If the senate cannot come to an agreement of a way forward to put down this Presidential rebellion, and compel a fully account of what cheapened, then the voters need to know that. The public has 9 months. You canon force us to wait forever.
A reasonable voter could be convinced – despite the nonsense statements from the media – that the existing crew in DC is not to be trusted, and that new leadership is needed.
A new party can be crated, ones where leaders are willing to daily remind the public that there is a way forward, we will assert the rule of law, and we shall compel the President through Article II Section 2 to justify confidence in his power ever day.
The nation awaits your decision. But we do not await your solution. The issue is clear: The President’s rebellion remains a threat to the constitution, and it must end.
The filibuster is the time for the DNC and RNC to face these issues head one, discuss them in open, and provide a framework going forward: An assertion of Senatorial power over a Presidential rebellion.
The Senate should stay in extended debate until 2/3 of them agree to a plan going forward. Until then, there is on reason to end the debate.
But your deadlines in 1 March 2006. After than date, the States are ready to move.
This means that the Senate – despite no information about the NSA program – will have 30 days to review the matter, openly engaged in n extended debate, and craft a plan in the wake of the NSA hearings: Creating a guide for the House to investigate, bring evidence, charge the president, and then remove him from office.
The states are ready to act. They have the proclamations written. These will bypass the House Judiciary. The public will see exactly whether this issue is or is not faced head one.
The RNC has no chance of victory.
There is no reason to give them one.
The filibuster is simply an extended debate to let the public know: The Senate is in charge, they have a plan, and this rebellion will end. The rule of law will prevail, and the Constitution will be preserved. Until that happens, the States have reason to debate and take lawful action to end support of this unlawful Presidential rebellion.
The States can debate what contracts are or are not lawful; and evaluate to what extent their bond ratings are or are not at risk over terms of repayment, or outstanding liabilities. Yet, in the end, the rule of law – and the courts – will decide whether the President’s rebellion amounts to something contractors cannot reasonably expect repayment.
The states will have a role. They will have to review their contracts. And they should let the other 50 states know their findings.
Yes, there may be threats to be silent, or take no action. But the deadline remains 01 March 2006. Only one state is needed. One state is ready. There are many others on standby. They are watching. Listening. Hoping to learn more. They make decisions and judgment about the rule of law, and whether the Senate will or will not take action.
In the end, this Presidential rebellion will fail. The rule of law will prevail. It will either be squashed by the Senate, or it will starve when the states refuse to support the unlawful Presidential rebellion against the Constitution. Unlawful conduct cannot lawfully be justified to demand payment. It is time to cancel the contracts, take the matter to court, and tell the court: We cannot lawfully support these unlawful programs that support an unlawful program. Then, let the system of justice work. Let the world see the RNC, DoJ, and DoD and White House arguments. to justify continued support of the President’s rebellion. Force them to explain.
Their arguments have no legal merit. They know this. And for that, they should be openly rebuked for knowing this, but wasting the courts time. It will only take 1 state. And there are many ready.
* * *
The President is on notice. Every nomination is subject to Senate review. The issue of qualifications is secondary. The primary issue is whether we assent to your power. The Senate must with this filibuster remind the President – this is only the first of many filibusters. They will continue, and the public will well understand – why the Senate has refused to assent to this Presidential rebellion.
Know that no matter what non-sense the Joint Staff and the White House attempt to coordinate with the media, the public will see through it – just as we have seen through the non0sense over the NSA program and the lies about WMD. Nothing adds up. Their caselaw citations are worthless. They pick and choose. Even people who know nothing about the law can figure this out. Even though within the RNC and NSA who are under threat.
There is reason for hope. The NSA has woken up. Their President has rushed to convince them there is no problem. But now they realize that the pubic knows about the unlawful wiretaps. And we have yet to actually get a straight answer.
Imagine what will happen before the cameras. Before our eyes – we can expect the NSA to lie once again. Their leadership has already been discredited. They’ve proffered factually false facts about what happened over the FISA discussions. We know about the double talk from the White House. It is clear what is going on: The NSA knows it is in rebellion, and it is calling it something else.
Every nomination the President sends should be responded with simple statements. The Senate does not consent to the President’s power and the request for appointment DENIED, and this shall continue until inter alia
The House orders an investigation;
The President resigns; or
The president orders the rebellion to end.
Either way, this shall end. Either through cooperation, or lawful use of force. If the President’s rebellion cannot be tamed, and Congress refuses to act – then the States may issue proclamation – through Article IV Section 4 -- requesting the US Government intervene to protect them from the threat to the republic.
The states are ready.
* * *
Some in the media have comment on a new spine in leadership. But the real spine never left. It was always there. It simply needed the catalyst of a wakeup call.
You should thank the RNC for the reminder. Now we realize that the only spine we need to have is the trust and faith in the Constitution. The trick is to use that spine.
The filibuster is about asserting the rule of law an facts.
The Senate cannot be compelled to make any decision until they have information related to the unlawful use of military power in Iraq and America. Three things need to happen:
Withdraw, remove, or reverse what is happening which gives a “green light” that authority; or embrace the legislature’s inherent authority to discuss issues related to the President’s power;
Issue a floor vote on articles of impeachment – as an outline for the House to review -- with public comments, or the States will issue proclamation; and
Complete Phase II and the NSA hearing, an data testing in writing under penalty of perjury what is found.
These steps are needed to find facts, to make decisions, and permit the Senate to make an informed decision about the President’s use – and unlawful use during his rebellion against the constitution – so that the Senate may guide the country during this period of uncertainty.
The financial markets need reassurance that the rule of law is intact, and not everyone in America has lost their mind.
* * *
Let’s deal with a difficult subject. The Holocaust and Nazi Germany. Many are upset when the America actions are compared to that era.
When Senator Durbin spoke about the FBI affidavits, we was rebuked. Now, in light of the revelations over the rendition and eastern European detention centers, some are wondering whether they spoke to soon.
Indeed, it is troubling.
The issue before us is what is to be done; when will this stop; and what lessons can we look to. Previously, you’ve read comments about what might have happened had there been an RNC filibuster against Johnson or Truman.
Today, the broader issue is: What will happen if nothing is done. Vice President Gore ha already touched on that. It goes without saying, when the President is in rebellion against the Constitution, there is nothing stopping him from doing more.
That is the concern. And the reasons the states are concern. The issue isn’t simply what the President may or may not do; but what may happen to those who have no choice but to live in America.
Some people in America do not have the ability to leave. They do not have the money to travel, nor are they allowed to move away permanently. Rather, home in America is one of choice, and other in that they have no alternative.
Many years ago, the Statute of Liberty flickered. It remains a beacon of hope. But today, Ms Liberty is not longer the magnet of souls yearning to be free. Rather, she is more of a lighthouse of troubled waters.
America does not have a density that is set in stone. With every word you type or read on your computer screen, there is the chance that you will touch one – and let them know. There is hope. Yes, the rule of law can prevail, but it will take great minds to assert the rule of law. Your job is to simply trust that in the end, you will have the information to make a decision.
Uncertainty is information. It tells us that it is prudent to perhaps wait. Today, we do not know many things. So, it is prudent to wait before making an important decision. This isn’t about our love or hatred of a man; it is about the rule of law and power.
The law is there as a guide; and power is there to assent or violate that law. Our system is designed to tame power with law; not let the power subvert the law. The Senate should tell the President he has few options: Cease and desist from engaging in rebellion; withdraw the nominee; and assent to a House Investigation; or the Senate shall forever filibuster. If the Senate refuses to assert Article II Section 2, and end debate on this important matter, then the States will know they need to discuss the issue.
Either way, the issue is not going away. The delays are not working. And the issue cannot be stricken from the public’s mind.
There is a middle course: To put this on hold, and permit the House investigation to continue, and then disuses the issue more. But the option is not “up or down”. Rather, long before that is the issue of whether we4 assent and consent to this power. To compel the President to withdraw his appointee; until that time, the Senate should discuss and compel those who wish to end the debate to explain themselves.
They were upset that there was no debate over the Patriot Act; why different?
They were upset they didn’t know all the facts about Iran and WMD, why is now the time to do what the RNC wants?
The answer is: Those who complained before have been convinced these times have changed, the situation is dire, there are “other important” things to consider. Oh, please. Senator Landrieu’s whimpering about “getting on with Katrina” are hollow. She might as well change her party affiliation from the DNC to the RNC.
Who is Senator Landrieu to speak about “other important things” – a few weeks ago she almost groveled on the ground thanking the President for his wonderful assistance. How can the events suddenly change to warrant assenting to the Presidential rebellion, and not asserting Article II Section 2?
Again, this is a problem for Senator Landrieu to explain. It would please me if she were publicly rebuked, expelled form the DNC and Senator, and her State Governor replaced her with someone who appears to have a more consistent track records on whether there is or is not a Constitution and power under Article II Section 2 to act. It appears Senator Landrieu is more inclined to quiver in the shadow of non-sense, as opposed to use power to compel a rebellion to end.
Think back to the days of Iraq and WMD. This nation was given non-sense. Yet, time and time again we were told, “Oh, we just have to invade, because there’s no other choice. “ [blah, blah] Yet, remember back to those who were asking questions – think of the time you were told of questions not getting answers. What happened? We still have no answer.
So why the rush to assent – once again – to a track record of non-answer. If the threat is the potential loss of freedom – then make the RNC take it away. Don’t give it to them. Let the world and the States see what is going on. The states will realize that something is be rammed through – just as Iraq – and the at the President’s rebellion is spreading.
It remains to be seen whether the forces of prudence will prevail. But have faith, there is a small surprise. There is something called the rule of law. This permits all people to lawfully use your mind, think, and smile – even when times seem bleak, or your leadership is throwing mud at each other. Not to fear, they do this because they have no other options. Again, you were told – the tyrant will scream loudest just as the sword of justice gets closest to what he most fears.
Our job is to peel back the layers of this rebellion, and find out what is going on. Until then, the President’s power need not be consented to by the Senate; nor does the Senate have to move under threat of anything. This rebellious President has a larger problem on his hands: His staff is aware of his problem; and they know that they can no longer stick by a man who will not stay in office. Either way, they’re going to have to look for another job. This, in part, is behind the President’s problem: The people who started the non-sense are slowly drifting away. First it was Libby. And then there will be other resignations.
* * *
But let’s embrace the sensitive subject of Nazi Germany and 1933. What if the German government had asserted a filibuster? Would there have been a Holocaust.
If the answer is, ‘Yes, it was going to happen anyway,” then why isn’t the actual use of a filibuster sufficient to tame this President’s rebellion? The answer appears to be that the rebellion against the Constitution is entrenched, and spreading.
The States need to consider: What were the signs of problems in 1933 in Germany, and what could have been done a the State level? The states cannot be forced to join the president’s rebellion; rather, it is their job to protect their form of government. It is the job of the voters to learn, spread the word, and force the House to act on articles of impeachment.
* * *
Have faith and hope – even when you may be sad, or unable to sleep – there are others who know what is going on, and they are doing what they can to bring this to an end. I know it is sometimes upsetting to hear of the latest developments. Each time we think there is progress, it’s as if the rebellion is spreading. Not to worry, it cannot sustain itself. To many people are speaking and talking openly.
Now, on the Senate floor they are taking another step. It will be one by one. Recall Vice President Gore’s speech. Remember the words, but recall the passion. That is alive in all of you. It just needs some time for you to realize that it is there. Trust what is happening: It will test your resolve, and make you wonder what is or is not true.
Know one thing: The rule of law – our Constitution – is based on a very simple thing: Logic, reason, and the ability to think. The reason the RNC has problems is that their plans are devoid of logic. The only hope the RNC has is to rely on non-sense.
But there is hope. The non-sense is less persuasive. And there is greater reason for hope. The non-sense cannot tame the Constitution, nor can it put the States in a bottle. The States are free to discuss and debate. Even if all the RNC officials marched into your state, there are 49 others. But this will be on comers, and the public will know.
As they now know. The RNC is in rebellion. It is time for you to simply let these words go, and let them sink in. You may disagree. You may wish the facts to e other wise. Indeed, your role should be to simply express yourself as you have the right – and say exactly what is on your mind.
Your purpose should be clear: To simply say and write whatever you feel, even if it makes no-sense. It will be read. And trust that your words – however hateful or absurd you might think they are – they will be considered. Yes, each of your words has value, and each of you are important. But remember, you must put yourself first, and do what is prudent.
Around the country people are realizing they can make a difference. There is new fire in the sour of America. And the Constitution has been a big jolt of lightning – Vice President Gore’s speech sent shockwaves. And now it is falling apart before your eyes.
* * *
Remember, every little thing you can do to find facts, know the truth, and simply trust that things will work out – that is what is needed. Your job in this time of challenge is to read the Constitution and share it with your friends. Let it be something you look to when you have a question. You may not find the answer right away, but one day – the word you read – they will appear magically before you eyes – and you will have a notion of what must be done.
The constitution is a curious document. Every time you read it, there’s something else new. Current events will give you a fresh perspective. Your job is to know that document remains alive, it will prevail, and there are people of honor who assert their oath daily to make sure it will be there for generations.
Those who take their oath seriously are also under pressure. And this is the time for resolve. Yes, you may be asked to compromise. Know that should you join the rebellion you will lose. The public knows. And this is coming to a close.
Now is not the time to lose hope, rather it is a time to acknowledge your sacrifice until now, and now that you must hang on, keep the faith, and that your continued trust in the Constitution – and refusal to join this rebellion against the Constitution – has been the right one.
* * *
This President has no respect for his oath. He talks about civil liberties, but he only does that when he is caught. He simply prattles this to make nice commentary.
The issue is to look at his actions and results. He shows no evidence of truly supporting the document or your rights. Rather, when given the chance to affirm his oath and promise to faithfully executive the laws, this President does the opposite – and says he shall not enforce the law against torture.
He says there are exceptions. Yet, think about this: What are the conditions upon when someone might come across as “ticking time bomb”? Ask yourself, “How would you know who torture or not torture?”
The President says there may be a situation. But he ignores one critical question – who is the person who told you “this is the person we have to torture?”
In other words, if you have someone that you “just know should be tortured” – how does the person who is telling you, “This is who you need to torture” – how do we know how this person knows? If this person “just knows” – then ask, “Maybe the person we need to really pay attention to is the one who says, “Torture this other person.” The my have some reason for saying that that person deserves to be tortured: Are they a judge, do they have secret communications with people that tell them what to do?
Be mindful of the excuses given to ignore the law. They are never justified. Bu the line of question will lead you to the real source of the problem: they are making an accusation for a reason – what is their agenda, and why do they want to distract you from themselves, and point at someone else? This is behind racism.
* * *
The filibuster is important. There are substantive issues to debate:
Legislative inherent authority in Article II Section 2;
Tools congress needs to check the executive;
The structure of Congress to credibly challenge a President in rebellion
The nature of laws the President asserts
What Constitutional powers Congress must assert through Article II Section 2, and Article 1 Section 8.
Make no mistake, this does not make joyful reading for those of you who read a quick sentence in a blog. Rather, the matter takes time to digest. But give yourself the time and space you need to consider, respond, and carefully assess what is to be done. One of your guides will the Constitution, the other is your oath of office.
If the Senate is to be given anything, it simply a deadline. If the Executive does not respond, then Congress needs to do the same – not respond. A filibuster shares the news: The President’s rebellion is in the open, and the Senate will not assent to his power.
Let the President threaten. Let his pawns speak. And share the news. The information is merely more of a ruse. But nothing changes. They are the same reuses, but with a new flavor.
The president remains in rebellion against our Constitution; until he stops, there is no need to assent to his power. He does not move with regard to the law; so there is no need to move with regard to his false timetables – we saw the same with Iraq and WMD.
* * *
Senator Kennedy and Kerry offer hope. They have stood up. They have dared say what needs to be said.
Your job as a blogger is to support them – not blindly, but to be there to remind the world that the Senate is not alone. Rather, the Senate is there for us to assert against the President.
Keep in mind, the RNC will argue over this point. They will say, “If the Senate is too strong, then one day, the President will have a problem. What happens if there’s a DNC President.” Ah, well hopefully, they’ve realized what they’ve said: Accepted that the RNC will not control the White House.
But on another point, note what they are doing: They are asserting a hypothetical – something in the future – to get you to do or not do something to day. That is important to notice. That approach is merely a ruse: It implies a speculative consequence for something that is certain: Asserting the rule of law.
But, given we’ve already stated the rule of law is based on logic – then how can there be any negative consequence for thinking an noticing reality? Rather, the opposite it true: The RNC hopes to get you to not use your mind, cower, and be afraid of reality: That the rebellion cannot survive, it is known, and that Senator Kerry and Kennedy are doing the right thing with this filibuster.
* * *
A filibusters is more than a block. It’s more than a simple refusal to make a decision. Rather, it is the pure exercise of raw Senate power to refuse to assent or consent to a President in rebellion. And the Constitution gives this power to the Senate – to refuse to assent.
There is no merit to the argument that a nominee “deserve” an up or down vote. ON the contrary, the Constitution expressly states otherwise – that the Senate has the inherent authority to review anything they want related to the president’s power – and they need to consider the nominee. Rather, the Senate may say, “We to do not consent or assent to your power, so go away.”
It then becomes the problem for the RNC and White House to clean up. As they should, but they don’t work that way.
Next, what the RNC then does is whine about the “problems” or the “failure to cooperate.” Again, you must be alert: Notice exactly what the RNC is saying – their words are about themselves – the excuses the RNC gives is simply a reflection of their failure to cooperate with the rule of law, and the problems they have with this rebellion: The NSA has putted them, and the RNC is in a no-win situation.
Keep it simple. Do not take it personally. They will scream, insult you, imply that there are other things, or that all great big thunder clouds will appear. No matter, their rebellion is ousted.
Rather, remind them – you know of their non-sense, and throw it back in their face. It is their problem. And just as this nominee’s qualifications are not the issue, the issue is whether we assent to this president’s power. The Senate’s filibuster is a resounding “No.”
This President’ problem is that rather than assent to, “No.” he does things anyway. Fine, let him whine, threatened, but make no mistake, he’s going to make another error and the Senate will be there.
So have faith, next time he comes back, laugh louder at him. Make it louder. Give fully belly laugh. Try it. Stop reading this. Go to your mirror. And look at it. Smile. And smirk. That is all. Then come back.
See. You see what happened? You stood up to tyranny. You defied the rebellion. You moved yourself in a way this rebellious president cannot control. So, next time you are yelled at by one in the rebellion, smirk – but do it inside – then, when more join you, you can openly laugh. Remain confident: We will have a good laugh about this. The key is to remain hopeful. This is coming to an end. And you are smirking!
* * *
Washington DC is an interesting place in the springtime. There are many cherry blossoms. If you get the chance, especially after this Rebellion is put down, I encourage you to take a private walk to the Jefferson memorial. You will have the chance to see his statue. Know that his words are alive and well on the Senate floor.
Senator Kerry and Kennedy have read his words many times and they are taking action to simply put into practice what Madison said. As did Jefferson.
The Constitution and Declaration are two documents which go hand in hand; one is the outline of the problem, the other the solution. If you look at Article 1 Section 8 you’ll see many parallels to the long string of abuses in the declaration. That is by design.
Today, the way forward is to declare what is happening, then find a solution. Senator Kennedy and Kerry are doing what the barons did when they went to King John – refusing to assent to that power, and telling the leader you may not compel us to assent to this reckless use of power.
The way forward is simple. This Senate must outline the problem, and then guide the House in the fact finding. The impeachment process does not permit the Senate to do both the charging, investigation, and trial. This is by design. It is designed to be difficult, but not impossible.
Rather, today what’s needed is an open debate about the problem, and then the Senate merely needs to issue a statement of their concern and way forward. Rest assured, the states are ready to act if the Senate finds that it would rather walk among the Cherry blossoms.
* * *
It is up to the RNC to justify their position. They have the burden of proof – why should we assent to your power? They have no answer. They merely offer non-sense. Their non-sense gets them 10 votes; and the rule of law can easily get 17.
The RNC must address the issue: Why are they suitable for leadership despite insufficient congressional power to check the rebellious NSA and President? The answer lies in the Senate Filibuster.
But, as with all things – when it comes to reality and solutions – the RNC enjoys creating a mess, and then denying others to the option to force the RNC to clean up the mess. Rather, they enjoy taking options off the table, as opposed to finding a lawful solution.
* * *
The filibuster will continue the discussion. But a vote to shut down debate will send a very clear signal – the Senate assents to the president’s rebellion. This will trigger state action within 30 days, no later than 01 March 2006. At that time, the state level will then engage and begin the process to debate this issue.
Again, to be clear – we make no claim that the RNC will or will not do anything to interfere. Rather, the issue is clear: There is a deadline and something will have to happen.
Let’s recall the bigger issue: FISA and the NSA. The issue is that we now know the President ha been lying to us about warrants; has violated the law; and has openly defied the authority of the Constitution.
This remains a White House problem. There is no constitutional crisis. Rather, there is a rebellion which compels the Senate to discuss openly.
It remains to be seen what the Senators do or do not do. But they are not gods, they are subject to state recall should the Senators as a body choose to expel them. So the DNC should let it be known – find a state with a solid DNC governor, and take out one of your own – expel them. Find any one of them, and let the RNC know you’re serious.
Then within a few short days, we’ll have a new DNC Senator more agreeable to the Constitution and rule of law. Then do it again. Look at it like a substitution effort during a football match.
The key is to compel the RNC to take a vote. Most likely they will refuse to kick out a member of the DNC. If they assent, then make it known: “Aha, so we can work with the RNC on something.”
But if they refuse, ask whether the RNC is in rebellion and working with the DNC to spread the rebellion.
Again, the point is that the RNC is in a no-win situation. The key is to coordinate this rotation system with the States, and let the Governors know what is going on. Your goal is to force the RNC to make a choice: Do we go along with this or not.
Surprise: Guess what the RNC is going to do – they’ll want to have a filibuster. But, wait – wasn’t’ that something they just said wouldn’t happen?
Shocked! So, here we go – when the RNC doesn’t want to commit to something, they have wanted to do what they deny others.
That’s the point. Whether the DNC does or does actually expel one of their own is irrelevant. The point is that the RNC, when backed into a corner with a no-win situation will want to rely on the very things they hope to deny the DNC.
That is the key: Force the situation and let the RNC find themselves in a no-win situation. When the assent, and agree that you’ are right. Surprise them. Go ahead an expel one of your own DNC members just to drive the point home: The DNC will use its power, even after the RNC gives an inch.
You must trust the system: Make it know the reason this is happening is to make a point to the RNC. The Senate shall not be tampered with. And this rebellion shall end. The DNC is wiling to impose discipline to end this rebellion, even if it means sacrificing one for the sake of the Senate’s ability to assert the filibuster.
Let the DNC members know: The DNC leadership could do something to stand up. Your job as a blogger is to ask you leadership why they are afraid of calling the RNC bluff. Let them take a way the filibuster; this will open up a problem for the RNC when they are forced to vote in support of the DNC member who is being expelled – otherwise, they will have to protect them, raising suspicions of a spreading rebellion.
Do not wait for the RNC. Force the issue and strike first. They will not know what to do. Then do it again. Do not give up. They will be subdued soon. There is a way.
* * *
The purpose of this filibuster is to spark a needed national debate. The issues themselves are not important. What is important is that people openly talk. Talk leads to understanding, and understanding leads to solutions.
To say that we have a deadline, and the talk will end is backwards. Rather, you must give a deadline, and then the talking will start. That is why there is a 01 March 2006 deadline for the House to take action. After than, the States will begin serious discussions.
So too must the Senate do the same. They must give a deadline, and then they must follow-through. The Senate is no more or less powerful than the President. Rather, the Senate is equally powerful as powerful as the President. The trick is to use the power you have. That is what the filibuster is all about – a refusal to assent to power.
Again, if the RNC takes away the filibuster – expel one of your own – and this will put the RNC in a no-win situation: Supporting a simple rotation out of the DNC, and get a new DNC Senator. This will spark a debate at that State’s level.
Surprise: if the RNC and DNC decide to gang up on a certain state, that state may choose to issue a proclamation calling for an impeachment. But there will be nothing to the Senate can do to stop this. So be wise and prudent in your use of force. The States can and will take action.
* * *
Vice President Gore discussed many things during his speech. He eloquently referred to the oath of office. That is what the filibuster must be about and other things:
Rule of law
Section 1 Article 8 and its foundation for FISA
Who the voters can or cannot trust
Whether the senate comprehend the rebellion
Whether the government is or is not committed to solutions, and competence; or whether it is more interested in harassment and retaliation against those who speak the truth
What method will be used to develop an NSA0-like monitoring system to intrude on the executive
Again, to be clear – notice the RNC excuses: “Oh, we can’t have an invasion of privacy of the executive.”
Note exactly what they way. Then contrast that with their approach to the NSA monitoring of the public: “If you have nothing to hide, then you should not have anything to fear.”
Again, the issue isn’t to debate with the RNC is what they say – but to highlight that the excuses that they give for “why this cannot be done” are at odds with their approach and justification for what it can be done to the American public.
Again, the point isn’t that power is or isn’t’ possible; rather, the issue is why is the RNC willing to assert his power on the people, but will not lawfully assent to a similar exercise of power by the Senate?
The answer is the president is in rebellion.
The way forward is to discuss – with a filibuster – this rebellion and propose solutions – namely the power of the Senate to create an NSA-like monitoring system of the Executive. Again, the point isn’t whether such a system is or isn’t approved – as it should be – but to use this President’s reaction as a mirror for the rebellion:
Does the President feel compelled to provide excuses for what he is doing; but then offer things to justify why the standards he says the American people are to put up with are not sufficient for him to meet?
Does the President engage in another smear effort – as is likely – against those who dare exercise some independence?
Again, it doesn’t matter what the President does. For should the President fatally harm the reputation of anyone in the senate, simply expel them an have a new election. This will spark a state-level debate and return a new Senator wiling to take their punches.
But then again, this could be avoided had we simply asserted the right to filibuster. No matter, the RNC wants to do away with it – so let the Senate rotation system get expedited, and call attention to this rebellion so the voters will have more information to make an informed decision in the 2006 election: The RNC continues with the rebellion.
* * *
See how this work? The RNC is in a no-win situation. No matter what they say or do it is non-sense and related to a rebellion against the Constitution. So start treating them like the people they really are: Disgusting, uncivil, rebellious people who disregard their oath of office.
Eventually, they will realize that you’re serious about the filibuster. But they’ll come up with new options to threaten you. OK, fine – let them cancel the programs – that will just give the pubic something to discuss when they review the proclamation related to the impeachment.
Everything the RNC does should be linked with another reason the States need to take action. Every threat they make, every comment they utter, every excuses they throw about why something cannot be done: Another catalyst to remind the states that a proclamation needs to be debated.
The reason the RNC is doing this is that they have no other option: The law is not on their side. They only have the force of non-sense and abuse. They are not leaders or statement. They are bullies and must assent to the rule of law.
So enjoy the filibuster. Listen and laugh at the snaky comments about “why this will never work.” The states are poised to take action. Looking for any excuse to remind the House what can happen. The deadline remains 01 March 2006.
Thirty days is not all that much time. The Senate has a lot of work to do: Issues to review, oaths to administer, matters of leadership, and the continued discussions with the State to compel the House to act on that proclamation.
Indeed, the Senate with all this work to do, really doesn’t have time to be bothered with any more appointments. So the White House is going to have a problem – as the resignations continue – what to do with all these vacancies.
Ah, the small problem with the Senate and the filibuster. The RNC shall regret the day they changed the rules – this will only antagonize the states to issue a proclamation faster.
So the drill is simple: RNC does something, link that to why the states should issue proclamation. The RNC doesn’t do something, link that why the States should issue a proclamation. Hay, see the pattern – as long as the RNC is in the way – the States should issue proclamation and get an impeaching inquiry going.
01 March 2006. The Senate can easily hand on that long. There are 50 Senators. And all that ha to be done is point to Article II Section 2 and remind the pubic this isn’t about the nominee – its’ the refusal of the Senate to assent to the President’s rebellion.
* * *
The Filibuster is an inherent legislative power of the Congress – through Article II Section 2 – for the Senate to openly discuss the issue of the President’s power. If the Senate does with to consent to that power – and make no comment on the nominee – then that is a lawful use of the Article II Section 2 power which is inherent within the Constitution.
The filibuster is a right to speak on constitutional matters. If the extended debate option is rebuffed, then the Senate must explain why it is not following its rules. The Senate clearly requires that constitutional matters be discussed. Debate may not be limited or denied unless the Senate agrees in a manner consistent with the rules.
It remains to be seen: Will the Senate follow its rules – permitted extended debate – or will it mandate that the Senate ignore its Article II Section 2 official powers, and point to mushroom clouds or some other imagined curiosity as the reason to not assert a right to discuss the President’s open rebellion against the Constitution?
Changes to the rules must be done in a manner consistent with the rules.
To get around this threat of having the rules changed – the DNC must demand the opposite – and move first – require the rules to be changed. Use the power to compel 2/3 vote to change the rules and keep the Vice President at bay. He is not allowed to speak. Tell him he’s a weasel.
Rather, the proposal is to have the DNC members break ranks, and openly vote so that the number of votes for the vote is not 50. Rather, have the DNC members vote with the RNC, and have just enough votes so that ere is a wide margin to keep well away from 50 and 67.
This will do several things. First, it will show the RNC that the DNC is willing to break ranks at random times, an that the 50-50 tie problem is an illusion. Second it will show the RNC that the DNC is willing to al their bluff. Think back to the RNC demand that the troops be withdrawn from Iraq immediately. This was done to discredit Murtha. The RNC voted down that proposal.
So do the same in the senate. Each day, during open debate, have another round of votes calling for the right to open debate – changed from 67 to 50. This will get rejected. Don’t wait. Make it happen. Force the RNC to respond to the DNC; and compel the Senate to get disciplined.
IN so many words, what should happen is that before the extend debate occurs – there should be a ceremonial rebuke of the threat to end the filibuster – and close ranks. Compel the DNC to mandate the filibuster be changed from 2/3 vote to 50, reject that call, thereby affirming the right to filibuster. Then remind the DNC that any who break ranks and support an end of the debate will be expelled. Take you RNC-support to the President’ Rebellion, and the DNC funding to your state ha been shut off.
* * *
[ More is on the way ]
Remember, if the President says, “I will make recess appointments,” the RNC cannot stop the filibuster. Rather, the President will have to dismiss Congress.
Then the world will know we have a dictatorship and the President’s rebellion has succeeded. Not to worry, there are many more surprises. The States still have some lawful options to employ.
In the meantime, let your friend know, the fight to preserve this Constitution has not begun. But there is a growing body of free citizens who realize the President’s rebellion shall fail.
The RNC is in a no-win situation.
Please call your friends, and write to others – encourage them to write letters of support for this filibuster. It’s time to draw the line in the sand, and force the government to face the issue of impeachment. Until then, we need not consider the trifles related to appointments.
We have far larger issues to consider: The color of the spring cherry blossoms.
Best wishes. Remember, you are not alone and we have made great progress. Keep your mind alert, rest, and share with your friends your thoughts and reactions. It doesn’t matter whether they are good or bad – any comment will help subdue this Rebellious President.
The rule of law shall prevail, as will our Constitution.
Rest peacefully, and let your mind drift of things you desire. They are yours, and nobody can take away your dreams. Only if you let them. You must choose to assert yourself, and also to assent to a rebellion.
Either way, it is a choice – your choice.
[ More soon . . . ]
Added: 29 Jan 2006
Let’s review what we have, and keep the big picture in mind. The President has defined the Constitution, and has unlawfully ordered the American military to engage in unlawful conduct in violation of their oaths of office. The Senate now considers the issue of a filibuster.
A filibuster isn’t simply a delaying action; it is also a public forum to raise issues. At the heart of the matter is whether the President is or is not fit for continued public service. It remains a matter of law whether the rebellion he leads is or not the basis for other officials in DoD, DoJ, and the NSA to permanently be barred from holding any public office.
The issue before us: What is the agenda for the Filibuster?
Let’s consider a key question, and recognize this has many other issues attached – each which becomes an important issue to consider during extended debate.
* * *
During a Senate trial, the Senators are not allowed to speak. Therefore, it is prudent for the filibuster to lay down the issues for the removal for office. The Senate must come to an agreement of which evidence they will accept as sufficient to warrant removal from office. The filibuster is the appropriate forum to discuss this issue.
Once the States issue a proclamation, there will be little the specific Senators can or cannot do, other than review evidence. It is our view, that rather than conduct back room deals, use the filibuster as the forum to openly discuss what is known about the NSA program, and get the Senate to commit to what will or will not be sufficient.
This will form a notional baseline of where the Senators stand with respect to what is known. Going forward, into the Judiciary Hearing on the NSA program, the Senators will have discussed the evidence in advance, and have an idea of what they need to resolve for purposes of removal.
Clearly, the above approach is backwards, and contradicts the notion of fact finding that is supposed to occur in the House. However, given the timeline we have, we have to work with what we have: The President has forced the Senate to review a nominee before providing all the information; thus, it is appropriate during a filibuster to return the favor to the President and appropriately plan and strategize on how to lay the foundation for the President’s removal.
* * *
Again, Senate rules specifically say that debate need not be germane. Thus, there is no basis to say that the Senate during extended debate may or may not discuss the issue of evidence and investigation plan for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
* * *
The Senate needs to organize itself to outline and arrive at a quantifiable list of charges and evidence sufficient for 2/3 to remove the President. The Filibuster should focus on this primary objective: Organizing the Senate so that it knows in advance that the NSA line of questions is geared toward one objective: Finding facts that compels removal from office.
* * *
The Senate must also accept that the President’s rebellion has affected the Senate. Namely, the arguments the Senate reviews during extended debate can and will mirror of what the President argues. This is important to realize.
First, think in broad terms of the President’s defense of the NSA program. He argues that he has inherent authority. The Senate at the same time argues that it has the inherent authority under Article II Section 2 to review whether they assent to the President’s power.
Here is the problem the Senate will have to grapple with. Note the problem is in direct contrast with what the President is arguing. The RNC will be in a no-win situation.
First, the issue for the President over inherent authority is that the power is in the Constitution. This remains debatable. Because the Senate has the inherent authority in Article II Section 2 to question this power, the RNC will say that this line of question – with respect to the nomination process – is in violation of the rules.
This is the trap the RNC is fallen into. Because if the RNC is asserting that the senate can or cannot do something – although the Constitution grants that explicit power to review that matter – then the Senate will have to debate the key Senate rule on the Constitutional basis. This will trump all other debate.
Also, the specific Senate rule related to nomination focuses the line of inquiry related to a nominee to a single question. However, we are not in executive session. This means that during extended debate the Senate may choose to discuss any matter whether it is or is not germane.
The issue is the Senate rule: Is it Constitutional. Put aside whether it is or is not; and keep in mind the other problem: That of the filibuster itself. Lott has stated that the Filibuster is unconstitutional, and that he finds no legal foundation. If this is true, then Lott is arguing against himself.
First, if after a review of Article II Section 2 – which recognizes the senate’s inherent authority to question the President’s power before reviewing the nominee’s credentials – we are told that there is no inherent authority, then the President has a problem: There cannot be inherent authority for the President either.
Let me say that another way: Any power that the Senate is not allowed to assert or practice – that is clearly in the Constitution – then neither can the President. The trap is that the RNC, in order to narrow the line of inquiry, will argue that the Senate does not have inherent authority to do something. Then these Senators will rightfully have their arguments questioned:
A. Why are they saying that the Senate has no inherent authority, but the President does;
B. IF the Senate is denied inherent authority, then how can the President assert inherent authority;
C. Under our system of checks and balances, the idea of a Senate is that it checks the President – which oath of office did the senators take – that to preserve the constitutional system of checks and balances, or to serve the President?
No matter what the RNC does, they will lose. This will also apply to the filibuster rule, as it contrasts with the rules related to the nomination. Again, the drill is simple: The purpose of this debate is to highlight the problems of the President’s power. The filibuster can do this simply.
First, consider the Senate rule saying that the Senate must confine its vote to a single question: Whether the nominee is qualified. Put aside the merits of that rule aside, and consider the other rule under contention: The filibuster. The Senate rules say that rules can only be changed with 2/3 vote.
The issue is simple. If we are to believe that the Senate rules are constitutional – and the courts have no say in the rules, as affirmed in Nixon v. US – then the Senate is arguing against itself over the filibuster rule. On one hand we are asked to believe that the filibuster rule – despite clearly written requiring 2/3 to change a rule – can be changed in another way, or it is not constitutional. Yet, when it comes to matters of the nomination question – another Senate rule – we are asked to believe that that rule cannot be changed, and that the line of questions and issued being considered is outside the question in the Senate rule.
Either way, the Senate is arguing against itself. Notice the contrasts between the approaches it takes to the Senate rules. It has one approach when it comes to the issue of the method to change rules – the rule can be changed without meeting the requirements -- ; and a different approach when it comes to issues of nominations – the rule cannot be changed to allow for other issues.
At the heart of the problem is whether the Senate rules are or are not Constitutional; and whether the rules as they stand are subject of debate. One rule says that the inherent authority the Senate is not recognized – in that it narrows the discussion of the nominee to issues other than the President’s power. The other argument is that the filibuster is not constitutional, despite the inherent authority to consider matters of power.
This is the bind the Senate finds itself. If the President – seeing that the Senate is moving toward gathering momentum to remove him from office – will likely challenge the proceedings as unconstitutional. Bluntly, Nixon V. US shows us this approach fails.
The other problem is the disconnect between the constitutional issues over filibuster and the nominee rules. The bind is that there are two standards on whether the rules can or cannot be enforced; and whether the Constitution does or does not have to have explicit language related to that rule.
The filibuster is inherently constitutional because it asserts the Senate’s inherent authority to check and question the President’s power. However, this review is unconstitutionally limited by the senate rule that narrows the review to something other than what the Senate has the inherent power to do: Check the President’s power.
The Constitutional issue is: Why is one rule which asserts Senate power – the filibuster – getting changed without adherence to the Senate rules; while another rule – related to the nominee – is strictly adhered to, although it defies the Senate’s inherent power to check the President.
Either way, the RNC has a problem. If the Senate RNC says that there is no inherent authority, they cannot explain how the President’s matching inherent authority is checked. On the other hand if the Senate RNC argues that the rules can be changed in an inconstant manner – then they are in violation of their own rules.
The challenge for the filibuster is to debate this issue:
Why is the Senate limiting the review to issues that unconstitutionally narrows the Senate’s review, and prohibits the exercise of inherent authority to check the President’s power using Article II Section 2;
Why is the filibuster rule – asserting Article II Section 2 inherent authority to check power -- asserted as unconstitutional – while the nomination rule – which restricts the senate from asserting Article II Section 2 inherent authority -- is asserted to be lawful?
Regardless the answer, the President’s defenses – in re NSA unlawful activity -- fail; and the RNC is shown to be arguing for the President, not their oath of office or any check on power.
This is important information for the State level voters to assess. The purpose of the Filibuster should be to mobilize the state voters to recognize what is happening, and that the RNC is not to be trusted with respect to their oath, rule of law, checks on power, or the Constitution.
More broadly, the RNC is also in another box. On one hand, they assert the nominee using the inherent authority doctrine will be able to check the power of the President. Yet, by their own conduct, the senate has shown that the inherent authority doctrine is at odds with the Senate rules – the rules contradict the inherent authority of the Senate to do things it should be able to do – check the president, review his power, and engage in extended debate.
The Senate is shown for what it is: It arguing that the nominee will or will not do something relative to a doctrine the Senate rules does not recognize.
Either the Senate rules are wrong, and they limit the Constitutional power of the senate to exercise inherent authority;
Or the Senate rules are right, and there is no inherent authority to assert because there is no inherent authority of the President to check.
Or the Senate rules are unconstitutional in that they limit the Senate from asserting power to check what the RNC is lawful; and that they permit the Executive to demand the Senate respond, despite restraining the Senate from reviewing the President’s power.
Either way, there is a mess that is on the President’s lap, and the Senate RNC has not dealt with, and the voters need to understand:
A. The Senate rules and Constitution are not in harmony with the goal of checking power;
B. The Senate RNC makes arguments that support the inherent authority of the President, but do not recognize a balancing power in the Senate to check that authority;
C. The basis for determine whether a rule is or is not be followed is arbitrary, not consistent with the Constitution, and unreasonably introduces uncertainty into whether the RNC will or will not assert their oaths;
D. The rules related to extended debate – if they are changed using less than 2/3 votes -- are not consistently changed; while the rules related to methods to check the power of the President are narrowly applied, and fail to check the President.
The issue for the senate during extended debate is to tackle one issue: Will they change rules consistently using 2/3 votes, or only change the rules using arbitrary criteria that may or may not sufficiently check the president’s power. It is our view that this issue is a Constitutional one, warrants consideration, and that the Senate should debate this Constitutional issue.
Ideally, the following should be affirmed with respect to the rules and checks on power:
There is an inherent power in Article II Section 2 for the Senate to review the President’s power before considering the qualifications of the nominee;
The rules related to the nomination process should be changed using an arbitrary number – just as the RNC proposes with the senate;
The rules related to the filibuster process should be affirmed at 2/3, and strike down any mention of whether the filibuster can or cannot removed using 50 votes.
Here’s the problem for the RNC:
A. Either the Senate rules are real and enforced, or they are not;
B. Either the notion of inherent authority is real or it is not;
C. Either the notion of checking power is real or it is not; The RNC conduct shows they are more interested in constraining the Senate than in the President. We judge the RNC conduct is unconditional. A reasonable person should ask why there is deference to power, rather than asserting power. It remains for the States to evaluate whether specific RNC Senators have greater loyalty to the Executive Branch that their oath of office.
A reasonable person would seriously question whether the RNC is or is not meeting their obligations, and whether they can or cannot be trusted to check the power. This is far broader than whether the nominee can do so. IN other words, it’s one thing to debate qualifications; its quite another to believe the debate will be fiction when the senate engages in the same selective legal twists which tend to erode the system of checks and balances.
The filibuster is the appropriate forum to discuss these issues. If the Senate fails to review these matters, the States should discuss whether the Senate is truly protecting this Republic. It is our view the States have a reasonable basis to raise this issue; and seek clarification and assistance. If the States do not discuss this Constitutional question, then it is up to the voters to seek alternative representatives.
* * *
This leads us into the next them of the Filibuster. This is the issue of the elections. Given the States are poised to take action, and the Senate will likely discuss the issues of removal, the next area to discuss is the transition of power. In other words, the filibuster is an excellent time to discuss in open the issues of transition, fact finding, and who the next president will likely be.
The voters will need to be reminded of their important role. First, if Fitzgerald does issue convictions against both Cheney and Bush, the issue of succession will follow. However, reviewing the Nixon impeachment process in re Ford, we are reminded that the next President could be anyone. It is possible during the November 2006 elections that new representatives will get elected. Also, it is possible for the senate to expel named senators, and governors to replace them; or Senators should resign, and the Governors could offer them as replacements for the House resignations.
Bluntly, the 2006 election is now up in the air. And this is compounded by the problematic Rove RNC approach: It failed to consider the State’s role in the impeachment.
This means that going backward form November 2006 until now, there is a window where anyone in the country could feasibly become the Next President. In other words, if we presume after November 2006 the President is either indicted by Fitzgerald, and/or the House completes its investigation, then at some point when the president faces the impeachment and trial phase, he will have to make a decision: Fight it out, or resign.
If the Senate during this filibuster is organized, they can discuss these issues so that the voters are fired up. In other words, rather than wait until the summer to possibly mention these things, the DNC leadership in the Senate filibuster would be wise to say exactly what this is all about: This is about organizing the voters to carefully watch these issues over the NSA, and for the voters to be poised to make informed decisions. If as we suspect there will be 17 RNC Senators who will vote for removal, then the voters in 2006 will be placing in the House the replacement. In other words, the 2006 election is no longer a mid-term election, but an off-year Presidential election. The Voters need to be reminded what is going on.
They key will be to ensure two things: The Senate organizes itself to clarify what criteria will or will not convict the President and remove him from office; and also what actions the voters will take to issue proclamations to have Senators replaced.
Let me say that another way. The issue of whether the President is removed from office is not static. Rather, if the voters sense the RNC is the source of the problem in the next weeks, the public will have had 8 months to digest that information, and make adjustments in their votes for the RNC. If the RNC loses – as we suspect they will in the Senate – then the number of non-DNC votes required will drop. At the same time, as the information from the RNC scandals piles up, the voters will more likely issue proclamations against the RNC. At the same time, the closer the DNC gets to 67, the easier it will be to remove Senators with expulsions.
* * *
The key point: The Filibuster should be about organizing the voters so that they are well poised to make informed 2006 decisions based on facts, not the White House non-sense.
If the DNC organizes itself, and establishes an agenda for the filibuster, this will help focus the voters on the key issues:
A. Clear criteria to remove the President from office
B. Establishes a game plan to organize the Senate Judiciary Fact finding over the NSA issue;
C. Harmonizes the Senate criteria for removal with the House investigation
D. Asserts the 2006 election is really about picking the next President
E. Raises the constitutional issues of the Senate rules as they relate to inherent authority, thereby showing the RNC is at odds with its arguments in support of both the President and the nominee
F. Outlines a framework for the transition plan from the Bush Administration to the next President, with required reforms in the system of checks and balances;
G. Reveals the RNC approaches that are at odds with their oat of office
H. Provides fair warning to the states to prepare for the upcoming issues related to the NSA, Proclamations, and voting issues related to the President
I. Establishes a framework to address what the Congress should do if the President’s rebellion spreads, and he dismisses Congress
J. Outlines an orderly backup plan for the States to organize a Constitutional Convention and return the nation to Constitutional authority.
K. Shows the White House and RNC are moving without regard to their oaths of office and Constitutional responsibilities – remain a threat to the republic, and the voters should have no reason to place any special trust in their continued public service.
* * *
The above list is manageable. Easily understandable. And is well within the scope of possibility for the public to comprehend. The issues can be couched in terms of the Constitution.
Remember, the voters can figure things out. The job of the Senate is to provide a structure for the information, and help the public see through the RNC non-sense.
The filibuster can organize the Senate to keep focused on the real issue of Article II Section 2: The power of the Senate to question and not assent or consent to the President’s power.
* * *
Going forward, there will be several issues which the states will begin to debate and discuss. As the State proclamations start, there will be questions related to state involvement in the ongoing Presidential rebellion.
Bluntly, the States are going to have to decide to what extent they are or are not going to continue exposing their resources, state, and people to legal liability. If as we believe the case, the States will get attached to the legal liabilities – in that they provide material support for an unlawful Presidential rebellion – then the issue for the public and state legislatures to discuss is:
A. What is to be done if our state militia is called up to support an unlawful Presidential rebellion;
B. What are our legal and financial liabilities should the contracts – Under the 14th Amendment – not be recognized as lawful, in that they support an unlawful rebellion;
C. What is to be done if the President attempts to shut down either the Congress or State legislatures and prevent them from discussing these issues;
D. What is the specific back-up plan should the President unlawfully suppress domestic discussion about the President’s rebellion and make illegal any Constitutional convention – where will the States physically meet to discuss these issues;
E. What is the plan to work with the member nations of the General Assembly should the states need support and ask for support to protect the States from the unlawful Presidential rebellion?
The filibuster needs to address these issues head on. The President must know and be told in no uncertain terms that the Senate cannot support an unlawful rebellion against the Constitution. Rather, the Senate has the legal power to check the President using the filibuster, and can organize the States to prepare for what the President may do.
The Senate should
1. Make it clear that it will not support the President’s unlawful rebellion, nor will it recognize any financial payment or obligation that supports this rebellion;
2. Work with the States to find a suitable, safe, secure location for all 50 state locations to meet in a back-up location should the President attempt to interfere with a Constitutional convention;
3. Review all treaties this President has signed or is obligated to follow to assess whether any member nation of the UN has been threatened with retaliation or other consequences if they vote to support a resolution finding the US has unlawfully engaged in war crimes by unlawfully using military forces against civilians both in Iraq and the United States.
4. Require all American military personnel to re-sign their oaths of office, and reaffirm their allegiance to the Constitution, and lawful orders.
It is our view that the President has discussed the possibility of disbanding the Congress. Should this occur, this will be the catalyst for a Presidential problem. The Constitution requires that all appropriations bills begin in the House. If the President chooses to sign this legislation himself, then the UN General Assembly must be advised that the US has violated the Constitution and is a dictatorship. Also, it remains to be understood to what extent the US faces sanctions. Given the US position on the security council, some might argue this will never occur. However, the General Assembly can make a finding. It remains to be understood how many members of the General Assembly have hidden or non-public agreements with the White House to oppose and interfere with efforts to vote against the United States. At this juncture, things would appear bleak.
A. What does the President propose doing to ensure appropriations are lawful when he disbands Congress;
B. What is the nature of the agreements with other nations to interfere with states seeking relief in situations where the President has disbanded Congress;
C. What existing or planned cooperation does the White House speculate may be justified to dissuade lawful discussions between the States and the General Assembly related to matters of a domestic Presidential Rebellion;
This is the very reason to have the filibuster now: To discuss this issue, and make it know to the President that we will not go down this path.
It remains to be seen whether American military personnel follow unlawful orders to stifle the states from discussing these issues. We have seen -- with the military use of the NSA and combat operations in Iraq -- the Joint Staff will assent to unlawful orders despite knowing facts showing the orders were unlawful; and that there was no legal foundation for their operations either on the ground or using unlawful signals intelligence (SIGINT).
Bluntly, the American Joint Staff has shown it cannot be trusted to honor their oaths of office, nor will they refuse to follow unlawful orders. This is an issue for the States to discuss, and the Senate needs to raise this issue and compel a showing for this problem:
A. What is the President’s plan
B. What will be done to constrain the President
C. What are the back-up plans to ensure the American military is only used for lawful purposes
D. What have been the nature of the discussions in NSA, JTTF, DoD, the White House, and DoJ to use the American military to dissuade the states from discussing these issues or meeting to hold a Constitutional convention.
We judge in light of the NSA unlawful program, that the plan is in place to interfere with lawful discussions. It is our view the President plans to disband Congress and that he intends to continue signing legislation and appropriations in defiance of the Constitution.
It remains to be understood the nature of the specific instances or pre-text the President plans to use to mobilize the military. We judge the States are vulnerable and demand immediate Senate assistance and counsel.
The time to discuss these issues is now. It will be far harder to organize the Senate when the President chooses to defy Congress.
There exists a continuity of government plan. It involves backup locations for the State legislatures to meet in such an event. We recommend the Senate leadership meet immediately with their State officials to discuss this plan, and ensure they are well aware of their options should the President move to suppress domestic discussion within the State legislatures.
Also, the NSA has a problem. It does not have a complete list of all equipment that cannot be intercepted. The Senate needs to review the list of equipment the NSA is unable to decipher, determine its location, and inquire what methods the President and Joint Staff have in ensuring this equipment is not unlawfully used to escape NSA detection. The issue is that there are communications within NSA that are not detectable. The President is unable to explain why he is unaware of the NYT discussions with the NSA.
It appears there is a sophisticated communication system within the NSA which the NSA itself is unable to decipher. This is what is permitting the President the luxury of defying the Constitution. It is the job of the Senate to inquire with the NSA about the nature of this equipment, its use, and how the President and Joint staff plan to use this equipment to suppress the State’s from discussing these issues.
We judge this communication system is in place, active, and one of the reasons behind NSA Internal Security Q2’s concern with employee reliability. If there was a bonafide intercept system that covered all known equipment, NSA would be able to simply scan the employees. The problem relates to access and control. The Senate should inquire during the filibuster into the NSA’s equipment control procedures.
This is interesting. In simple terms, some military hardware requires multiple locking systems. To use or gain access to a piece of equipment there can be several keying system. One approach is to have a 5-key system, whereby five different keys from different sources, all unrelated and not connect, must simultaneously interconnect. If there is a break in any one of the five, no access occurs.
NSA appears to have a security problem. Somehow, despite this keying system, NSA is unable to determine who is getting access to these communication system, nor can they guarantee that the keying systems have not been compromised. We judge that the five-keying system has been compromised, and there exists physical methods for a single key to gain access. Further, all five keys appear to be untampered. This permits unrestricted access to they keying systems, facilities, equipment, and other secure locations. It appears NSA has not understood the nature of this problem, and it cannot be confident that those personnel who know about this workaround can be relied upon.
It appears that Q2 is aware of the internal communication problem. In an effort to gain access to these non-official organizations, Q2 has attempted to pose as other members of the organization. However, the NSA has been alerted. Q2’s problem is that it is unable to determine how the information is released without detection; nor can they successfully penetrate the communication cells.
* * *
Let’s consider what an NSA-like monitoring system for Congress would look like. This system would actively penetrate the Executive Branch. Their loyalty would be to the Constitution, not the President. Their primary supervisor would directly report to Congress using equipment the NSA is not allowed to intercept.
Each Congressional cell inside NSA would have at least 5 sub elements, none of them are directly connected, but they move in harmony. NSA would be unable to determine the communication modes, method of organization, or how they will or will not respond to unlawful orders.
These elements within NSA have a higher loyalty to their oaths of office than they do to the President’s unlawful orders. The five segments include monitoring, research, legal, training, and engagement.
This element inside NSA tracks and provides visual information as needed for investigation, discovery, and other information for Congressional litigation against the President and NSA personnel.
This element is the more public element. This element inside NSA monitors lessons learned, and engages in Congressional liaison and coordination with foreign intelligence on raw data which NSA and DoD may or may not have access to.
The purpose of these liaisons is to gather other information which may shed light on the veracity of the President’s comments or other submittals to congress in matters of proposed combat operations, or other information provided to the Intelligence Committees.
This element provides interface with legal personnel, and provides oversight of operations to ensure conduct is consistent with the oath of office. This raises substantive issues, documents responses, and ensures the ongoing NSA operations and programs are consistent with the Congressional intent and Constitution.
This element inside NSA provides assistance, warnings, and other useful information to the personnel. This element tracks indicators and watches for new developments.
The purpose of this element is to ensure all operations are safe, personnel are well trained on the oath of office, and that the entry and exits are accomplished without detection or monitoring by NSA.
This is the heart of the Congressional monitoring system and where the Judicial Branch is brought into the nexus. They actively engage in electronic sweeps, organize random audits, and conduct no-notice inspections of the NSA files.
This direct-Congressional-reporting unit can move in and out of the facility without detection or record. They have universal access to all NSA keys and facilities worldwide. They do not require any coordination with anyone. They report directly to the Judicial Branch for approvals.
Approvals come from the Judicial branch, and the Congress gets the raw data and unedited report without any Executive Branch comment. All supporting equipment used for this monitoring system is outside NSA ability to intercept, control, or monitor. The Joint Staff would have no input, knowledge, or information on where this team is or is not.
* * *
The President has a problem. All arguments against the above Congressional monitoring system are at odds with his excuses to justify the NSA warrantless monitoring system on the American people.
A. Unfettered access by Congress is no different than what NSA has done, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act;
B. Movement without notification is not different than warrantless searches done without notification or coordination with the FISA;
Rather, the above model significantly restructures the Congressional monitoring, and moves from a paper-reporting system to one that is direct involvement, electronic interception, and penetration. The above model includes the court, provides a check on power, an independently gathers data for later comparison with official repots from the President on operations and evidence used to justify wars.
The Senate needs to discuss what method Congress plans to authorize to engage in direct monitoring of the Executive Branch using NSA-like technology.
The filibuster is the prime opportunity to discuss oaths of office, checks and balances, and outline a structure for the House Judiciary Committee to assess the nature of a suitable Congressional monitoring system might be. They key is to openly discuss the current known problems with checks and balances, assess how the current weaknesses in the statutes allowed this problem to occur, and begin a notional discussion of solutions to assert the rule of law. The President’s approach fails to meet this standard.
* * *
We arrive at the Presidential Rebellion and likely transition in 2007. The time is now to let the voters know: they will be choosing the next President in the 2006 elections. Although the official presidential election is not until 2008, it appears someone who is a member of Congress will be subsequently nominated for the Presidency.
The Senate needs to acknowledge there is a likely Presidential succession issues, and this must have an appropriate transition effort.
It is important to openly discuss the needed transition of power. Many issues are uncertain. The RNC has kept many things in the dark. But there is a way forward.
The questions are simple. The answers are murky. The Senate needs to discuss and formulate a plan to improve the information flow. This will be important to acknowledge going into the Senate Judiciary Hearing of the NSA.
The simple question is:
A. What information do we not have.
B. What method will be used to compel the White House to provide information to the transition team?
Keep in mind, there are issues related to the Fitzgerald Grand Jury investigation. The goal of the senate should be to assess what types of information they White House may wish to attach to this investigation – and suppress, complicating the transition -- , but should be available for the Senate to review.
It remains a matter for the Senate to discuss:
Why have the judicial nominees – such as Chief Justice Roberts – been open with the Judiciary Committee; but the White House has not been responsive on issues related to WMD, Plame, and the Energy Commission. Regardless the answer, the Senate has a credibility problem. Phase II lingers.
Before the Senate can credibly formulate a transition plan – and raise issues of data and information access – the Senate needs to resolve its in-house problem, and remedy these defects. Until Phase II is completed, the public has reason to doubt the information flows will be substantive within Congress, much less between branches.
Given the likely White House reluctance to cooperate, the GAO reports may be a simple and fast way to quickly assess the scope of the transition difficulties. However, if this approach is rejected, then the Senate needs to discuss if there are needed improvements in the GAO reports. Conversely, if the reports are sufficient, we need to explore the basis of the objections and see if there are other issues warranting full review by the Senate during the transition planning.
Broadly, the issue with the current Presidential action is simple. What method or changes need to be introduced to the GAO system that will provide a timely method to detect indicators of subsequent lawlessness. If there are bonafide indicators that were missed; or other information that was not acted upon – that remains to be understood. This is going to happen again. The objective of this analysis to focus on assessing what happened; and what will be done to more timely detect, highlight, remedy, and sanction constitutional violations.
If the GAO reports are valid, what will compel the President and members of the executive branch to show their hand next time. They appear to have no intent to address well documented problem. It is problematic when repeated GAO findings have insufficient funding or management despite facts, but we have active, unlawful combat operations based on fiction. It’s one thing to argue that we don’t have the facts when the reports say otherwise; quite another to have the budget, but freely spend that on things that are devoid of legal and factual foundation.
Bluntly, Federal employees have a major credibility problem. Each employee takes an oath. We have the self-evident disaster. On top of that, the employees are rude, unresponsive, fabricate stories, and fail to ensure that the other branches are adequately checked in terms of power. The Senior Executive Service has failed to mitigate this risk. Their job is to explain how they plan to compete with an alternative management system based on something that resembles law and order, not the self-evident disaster.
It is clear their loyalty is not to their oaths, but to themselves or “something else.” It remains to be understood how the entrenched loyalty-problem will be remedied. These are factors that will weigh in heavily on the qualifications of the appointment. In other words, it will be important for state-level voters to assess the types of qualifications needed to credibly arrive on the scene, with an objective view, and have the moral and legal authority to compel compliance with the oath.
It is our view the filibuster should point directly at this problem, and challenge the voters to choose candidates that meet this standard: Demonstrated independence, integrity, leadership, and a real track record of having stood for their oath. It remains to be understood whether the legal and business community has such a candidate.
There’s a problem with oaths of office and professional standards. The senate needs to discuss why this NSA problem occurred despite the legal community’s oath to the Constitution.
Why did it take so long for the legal community to mobilize
How does the legal community reconcile their oaths with what they’ve done and the results; what is the legal community’s plan to ensure the qualified legal experts assert the rule of law and Constitution, not simply advocate on behalf of a rebellious President?
When the “speedy trial” requirements in the Constitution were ignored, why did it take so long to get a result – it’s been four years since 9-11, and that is completely at odds with the lessons of 1776; Article 1 Section 8 clearly discuses pirates – this is not new.
What needs to be done to ensure the legal community quickly mobilizes to address these issues
What is to be done to ensure the original violations – detention without trial – does not occur. The issue isn’t that it could occur – but that despite it occurring the people in the government actively supported this unlawful activity. What is to be done to interrupt this quickly
Why despite Article 1 Section 8 congressional Powers to make rules related to trials, has Congress been silent over these matters?
Why has it taken this long for the congress to raise a real question about the legal issues over infinite detention, warrantless surveillance, glacial trials, and trials outside what Congress directs?
The problem is that oaths and promises to meet certain professional standards have failed to justify confidence the legal community would be there. Self-evidently, it was a few individual lawyers who took a stand. What happened to the lawyers in Congress or the broader system of checks and balances to legally oppose this?
One solution is to have a competing model with the American Bar Association. There may be market forces that provide incentives to provide credible work products without clients having to now the legal and professional standards than the experts.
A parallel approach is to adjust the way that cases are litigated. Rather than require the victim to initiate a lawsuit, the congress could legally challenge the executive in open court – with the Congress acting on behalf of the public. It would be helpful if the system of checks and balances was asserted in court – whereby Congress brought the public dispute to the court to compel a Judicial decision on programs, solutions, and what remedies are required. The current system encourages the executive to hide witnesses, move them to distant places. This conduct is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. What’s more troubling is the Congress failed to assert itself, assented to this conduct, and was not there as the Constitution requires. We have reason to doubt the Congress’ commitment to their oaths and the rule of law.
The filibuster needs to acknowledge the failings, with more than words, but actions: A public act of the Senate on the Senate floor handwriting the Constitution word for word before the world would do that, as would another round of publicly discussing the details of the oath, and a debate on the issues and questions that arise. Then another public swearing to that oath and Constitution.
The public and leadership should also read the Magna Charta. It details many of the abuses and solutions. Today’s problems are no different. Perhaps we should simply agree to have a discussion about the Magna Charta, and understand why this Constitution failed to remedy the weaknesses King George took advantage. Also, the Anti-Federalist papers outlined many problems. A filibuster should address these concerns, and acknowledge we have weaknesses the Anti-Federalist papers discussed. Again, the issue isn’t to say throw away the Constitution; rather, it’s to accept there are legitimate problems discussed in theory and as we have seen self-evidently in practice. The voters need to know that we’re not re-inventing the wheel; or rehashing old debates that are soon ignored. We need a real discussion about the way forward that builds on the mistakes, the existing documents, and what is already known of the defects. The voters are smart enough to know when they’re getting the same non-sense. Look at the high Iraqi turnout – perhaps it was because the voters were actually involved in writing the document.
A solution is to have the public afforded the time to have open discussion and question time with congressional leadership on the Chamber floor before the cameras, along with the risk of the most revolting comments. This is not to say that the Chamber need to be held in contempt – it is self-evidently wanting. Rather, this might do more to have a two-way communication for the world to see, as opposed to the one-way disappear in the fax-can approach with e-mail and form letters. Blogging should be encouraged.
There’s a disconnect between our educational outputs – graduates – and our performance – self-evident integrity issues. It is surprising despite this many graduates, the nation has moved this far along with little serious discussion of the remedies to the Checks and balances problem.
It remains to be understood:
Were researchers threatened with retaliation if they commented on these legal issues;
To what extent scholarly inquiry was stifled
The linkage between grant awards and favorable research; and denied grants and research raising questions about the President’s legal problems and unlawful conduct in re Rendition, RNC demonstrations, abuse/torture and Guantanamo, Iraq WMD, and unlawful Iraq invasion and the unlawful NSA surveillance;
The senate should review the RNC demonstration-detentions in light of the NSA program
A. How are these operations organized in concert with the NSA;
B. What is the basis to justify falsifying video evidence
C. What mechanisms need to be developed to detect abuses, create meaningful consequences for misconduct and unlawful conduct or fraud before the court.
D. How were law enforcement manning levels established based on NSA-estimates of likely public participation, as they estimated based on communication volumes;
E. How were public events targeted using NSA information.
One solution is for Congress to independently assess to what extent researchers and academic leadership are stifled, or dissuaded from speaking on matters related to issues of law, public policy, or executive conduct.
Overall, Americans are free to pursue their careers. Yet, what happened: Why did people freely choose to do this, despite the ability to do something else?
It’s not as though they were forced to take a job, or take an oath. Elected officials are not given the job – they have to actively seek it out through the trial of an election campaign. Despite the choice to do this, the results are troubling.
Why did free people choose to take an oath, but not remove themselves?
How can we say the American system is worthy of export when the self-evident disaster – failure of checks and balances, compliance with the law – is well below what a reasonable person should expect?
How will this be contained?
Are other tests, bars, or screening needed?
What is to be done to contain future Presidential rebellions?
If the filibuster is removed, what is going to trigger a needed review of a matter?
But for the NSA whistleblower, there doesn’t’ appear to be anything that was going to trigger this review. What other information exists or activities are occurring we have yet to find out? What method of checks, reporting, and oversight are needed to prevent this from happening?
One solution is to have an NSA-like monitoring program whereby Congress uses SIGINT to monitor the executive.
* * *
Let’s consider the problems with the existing leadership. Bluntly, their approach is to bury problems and pretend someone else has the job to solve them. The voters need to get a clear picture of the mess the RNC has created. The RNC needs to be compelled to publicly present their solutions. It’s not the job of the voter to “create a solution” only to have the parties ignore that.
Going forward, the filibuster will be a good time to identify the issues, scope the problem out, and let the voters know that we’re working to understand what is going on, and discuss workable remedies that will assert Article II Section 2 and the system of checks and balances.
It would be prudent to look at the Declaration of Independence, then show how the clauses link with the Constitution. A similar approach needs to be taken with today’s issues. The voters need to have confidence that there is a link between the problems and the proposed solutions. Rather than talk, the voters need to see that there is a line-by-line reconciliation with the problems – and a remedy – one that Congress is committed to implementing and actively using for day-to-day oversight and public discussion.
The concern is that the 9-11 report shows this process is problematic. Especially when the responsible entities are part of the problem. The lessons learned from the 9-11 Commission need to be factored in: What will ensure the needed reforms do not get another round of F-ratings? Again, the voters need to be presented with a credible plan that is going to work, not the same non-sense.
What will be clear is that the problems are more of the same in the Declaration. That is ridiculous. The voters will want to know that the proposed solutions are going to solve the problem, not simply let the entrenched unchecked Executive await another day. Rather, the solution is to remove the President from power and recalibrate the system with an oversight system that will check power, not destroy rights. The time to publicly start this organized debate is the filibuster.
* * *
The key message: Voters need to be involved in this debate. They’re the ones who have been abused under this system. It is the job of the elected officials to listen.
The voters need to hear that the Senate knows the problem; and that the Senate is willing to wok with the local voters to create a system that addresses their needs.
Voters have the power to choose. The Senators need to be reminded that the Senators can individually be expelled. It remains to be explained by anyone in the Senate how this President was able to do this much damage, yet the Senate has rubber stamped so much.
It needs to be explained why the filibuster was not used sooner.
* * *
Let’s consider the RNC approach to the disaster: Blame others, couch the issues in term of “national security.”
Actually, the real problem is that it’s the same PNAC approach: If you can’t provide solutions at home, export your focus, and then blame others when your failed plan collapses.
The RNC approach to issues is simple – they look at the world not in terms of problems to be solved within the social charter, but matters to be suppressed as a CEO would hide an accounting disaster from the Securities and Exchange Commission. One approach is consistent with the rule of law, the other approach is litigious in that it attempts to redefine the law as the CEO perceives the laws should be.
A CEO and President are not the same. A CEO’s goal is to make profits, regardless the usefulness of the product. A President’s job is to honor his oath. That is all.
CEO’s chase results regardless the method; this President ignores his oath, and acts as if the board of directors – we, the voters -- are stockholders – forced to put up with whatever non-sense he spews forth.
This President has made an error. But his error is not something he is quick to admit, especially when he knows he’s violated the law. Rather than ask for forgiveness or show contrition, this President asserts what he is doing is permissible. A board of directors notice when the CEO is unreliable. That CEO is fired.
A CEO and President are powerful, but not all powerful. A CEO is still responsible to a board of directors and the courts during a securities litigation. If the markets – in this case the existing Congressional system of checks and balances – fails to discipline a wayward CEO, then the courts –as the Senate should do with removing this President – is the only option to protect the purpose of the President: To preserve our Constitution.
The voters are not the same as stockholders – rather, we are the board of directors. The Senate needs to act like a human resources advisor and fire this President.
Here is the RNC approach:
Force a decision without facts
Accelerate decisions without information
Separate issues that should be combined
Define issues outside Article 1 Section 8.
You’ll see a striking similarity between how the RNC approaches issues, and how a CEO will review a matter during an audit engagement: Threaten the fact finder and spew forth non-sense.
* * *
America in December 2005 was given a rude wakeup call. It’s as if the CEO’s house of cards had fallen down. This President cannot put the cards back together.
We have one card: It is the Constitution.
Many employees have known about this problem. They had a duty to honor their oath, not blindly honor the President. They have joined in the rebellion against our Constitution.
* * *
One of the RNC’s approaches has been to act like a CEO. The RNC likes to suggest that if there are any consequences, there will be a backlash. Well, that would ask that we remain silent about this spreading cancer in the hopes that silence will contain the unstoppable.
Fundamentally, for there to be a “backlash” against those who are imposing order would ask that the undisciplined and comatose ones in the RNC suddenly awaken, use reason, and then take action.
We’ve had 4 years of inaction. Why should we believe that the lazy and unmotivated – those who defy their oaths and enjoy sucking the sweet juice of rebellion – are suddenly going to get motivated to the right thing?
The wayward in the Executive Branch have a problem. The only catalyst for a response is litigation, a swift kick by the judicial branch, and well pointed swords of justice as the fact finding unleashes more abuses. They’ve shown little inclination to exercise self-restraint. They are not to be trusted, and is the purpose of the checks of balances.
Yet, they defy the checks and ask us to trust them. They have made a fatal error. More absurdly, the public is not given the same deference – we are not trusted to exercise our power to impose order.
This RNC has proven itself unresponsive to the rule of law. The White House and RNC do not have a choice whether we do or do not impose order. The voters now know.
* * *
Knowing what we know now, what if the RNC had faced a filibuster over the Iraq WMD issue – and how might these lessons apply to Iran?
How would the issues of deference arise --Would we believe information, or would we demand greater burdens of proof;
How would the success have been measured – and would the success have been agreed to before launching the invasion, or simply adjusted to match what happens on the ground?
The President says we went to Iraq to find WMD. Then it changed. Then it was something else. Then it was democracy. Hamas is now democratic. Thank you White House and PNAC. When asked “what happens if Iraq votes to have the US leave?” – we were told that wouldn’t happen. The Iraqis are voting with their guns – the US remains.
The American government’s approach to various criticisms is to smear those like Congressman Murtha, Scott Ritter, and others who dare speak of reality.
It remains to be seen whether the RNC – in its desire to assert their agenda, nor their oath – will embrace their responsibility for interfering with factual debates. It is an open question whether the RNC committed fraud upon the DC Court over the attempted litigation to stop the Iraq invasion.
There is no WMD or imminent threat and we await word whether the Court plans to re-open the case and review whether there has or has not been perjury.
* * *
The problem with the RNC is that the non-sense continues. The NSA is an unlawful organization waging war on the American people’s Constitution. They choose to defy their oath to only obey lawful orders.
The RNC is in the pre-Magna Charta mode. The RNC’s problem is that it cites case law that undermines its position, selectively cherry picking phrases without considering the full record. The Nazis during world war II did the same to justify what they did.
Yes, it is appropriate that the RNC is finally insulted with the comparison fitting of their actions: Fascist. Perhaps they will stop referring to their cause as just or connected with God, when it is self-evidently disconnected from reality and their oaths.
This RNC went to the FISA court in 2002 and affirmed the process was sound. Little did we know it was openly defying the court, engaging in warrantless surveillance. Saying one thing, doing something else. Now, we realize that they’re doing the same. They selectively point to what was or wasn’t said, but ignore what was or wasn’t done.
The voters know. They only have excuses. They have no defense. Nothing adds up. They’ve consistently lied and committed fraud upon the courts and American people. Whether it is over an issue of law, facts, war, or simple matters related to trivial issues: It has one goal – to assert power without regard to anything. That is self-evidently sufficient to justify removing this Rebellious President from office. Yet, the Senate requires more evidence.
Thus, it should be the goal of the filibuster to get a straight story: What do you want, how much evidence, what scope of abuse and misconduct is required to remove this man from office? He will not be tamed by the law. As Vice President Gores asked: What’s going to stop him?
The answer is a filibuster. That is, if the RNC doesn’t create a legal fiction to remove that Senate power. IF they remove that power, then the White House cannot say their power is checked.
* * *
Consider the RNC’s approach to the issues:
No plan for a war of choice
Threaten people to limit debate
No discipline for abuse by choice
Rely on discredited legal theories
No vision for a prudent use of power
Point to case law that has no relevance
No legal foundation for a war of choice
Asserting they are complying – but they are violating – the law
Narrowly defining the role of the Senate in deference to rebellion
Imprudent use of military and political power, resources, and equipment
What’s the RNC’s response? Blame others for their self-evident disaster.
It was their choice. Now it is the voter’s choice.
* * *
The RNC approach to issues:
A. Create a mess
B. Violate the law
C. Blame others
D. Use bullshit
E. Repeat – Go to A.
They learned well from Hitler.
* * *
It is clear. The RNC and the Senate have not honored their oaths. They have reservations about what is happening.
The voters should ask why the Senators assent to this power. Article II Section 2 gives the Senate the power to not assent, but despite the White House non-sense the continue to do so.
The Senate has the power. The Senators are not doing their job.
The filibuster is the right thing to do. Make the RNC take it away. Do not give it to them.
* * *
The filibuster needs to challenge the senate rule narrowing the nomination question – it is not consistent with the inherent authority of the Senate to question the Executive’s power. The Constitution expressly grants the Senate the power to review the Executive’s use of power.
Those who refuse to check power – as they have the power and oath to do – they fail to show how they assented to this power without any mental reservation. We can only conclude two things: Either,
1. They are too stupid to realize what is going on – therefore unfit to lead; or
2. They know what they’re doing, and openly join the President’s rebellion.
Regardless, the RNC leadership in the Senate is not fit to command serious respect or deference. The voters need to ask how they can justify public confidence given the self-evident disaster.
Are they simply stupid, or do they have secret misgivings but are afraid to honor their oaths? Regardless, the voters have 9 months to digest the self-evident mess.
Where competence is in question, we need not consider any other comment or claim.
* * *
The filibuster needs to discuss the Constitutional questions of the Senate conduct. It is our view that it is unconstitutional:
For a senators vote to be conditioned upon power not within the constitution, or under threat of no discussing matters of the Constitution
For the Senate power to be constrained by a rule which compel the Senate to narrow their review of the Constitutional question
Defer to power without exerting the lawful use of balancing power.
* * *
Power and rules need to be distinguished. Power applies to government; rules apply to man. There are certain time, place, and manner guidelines. Broadly:
Rules may not deny where the Constitution permits.
Rules may not permit what the Constitution denies.
Power cannot be destroyed by a rule; a rule can only guide behavior.
The rules on man may not restrict lawful power
The rules of the Chamber may not prohibit where the constitution requires.
Any Senate rule that restricts the Senate’s inherent power is unconstitutional
Any rule that denies the Senate the power to assert its power is unconstitutional
Any statement the Senate makes that restricts the senate in asserting its power is unconstitutional
Any inducement to assert unlawful power is not constitutional
Any inducement not to assert lawful power is not Constitutional
Any promise to review a lesser matter and ignore a higher duty is not constitutional.
Any promise to review a lesser matter before a constitutional issues is not Constitutional.
Rules must be in harmony with the constitution and cannot eliminate power when the Constitution explicitly leaves that as a discretion.
Power not exercised does not change cloth; rules binding unexercised power is freedom awaiting the catalyst of judicial liberation.
No rule may bar examination of public threads, no r bind us to narrow examination across a broad horizon.
The Senate may not restrict debate on power, constitutional issues.
Any rule that prohibits the permitted/allowed use of power is unconstitutional.
No Senate rule, instruction, or Guidance may limit the Senators review to 2 of 3 factors when the senate has the power to review all factors, or one most important factor. The limiting rule has no legal foundation, regardless the intent or authority imagined. The Constitution is real; a desire is speculative.
It is up to the Senate to harmonize rules that contradict [a] each other and [b] the inherent powers of the Senate, as is the instant case.
The Senate has the power and constitutional authority to review the President’s power in relationship to all events, statutes, and acts. The President is subject to having that power called into question at any time, especially when the Senators as citizens of a state can ask their State legislature to issue a proclamation calling for a Presidential impeachment.
The Senate shall have the power to review Presidential use and abuse of power at all points where the Constitution recognizes that Senate Power. The Executive claims that FISA warrant review is “burdensome” is without merit. The Senate has the power to Review all warrants and potential power at any time.
Any guidance threat, promise, ore feigned benefit to not assert or exercise power is not constitutional
Any statement, promise, or information provided to the Senate with the intent to dissuade the Senate from reviewing, asserting, exercising power is not constitutional. [Test: Did the outcome of that information transmission result in the senate not asserting power it Constitutionally has the power to assert.]
There is no requirement to recognize the authority – that is the President’s authority – we he’s unlawfully using power.
Any statement the President makes that does not assent to the rule of law is not enforceable, legal, or Constitutional
The Constitution does not restrict the Senate from examining power at any point. It is the role of the court to remind the senate where it is free and the perceived limits on its power need not be considered constitutional or serous consideration.
Presidential power shall be reviewed. Senate doesn’t have the power to write a rule or compel action or narrow review when the constitution allows broader review. But the Constitution is no simply one of permission, but of mandate: Shall.
Where the Constitution is explicitly, the court finds the inherent legislative power of the senate to examine first the power of the President: Any action or threat or promise to avoid or dissuade power is unlawful.
Demands that the consideration be isolated to an up or down vote is not Constitutional. The constitution gives the Senate power to review the Presidents power however it chooses. An individual senator cannot have a rule limiting inquiry and demising that vital senate role and duty.
Senate procedure and practice does not trump the Constitution. A power conferred does not perish with disuse; rather it remains ever ready to strike a tyrant when least expected.
The Senate has the power to check the executive – whether the executive is speaking, utters a word, or pens a comment – that action becomes material and can be catalyst for the senate to ask at any time do we recognize this power?
One cannot argue that there are other important duties or issues, when the fabric of power is not the issue – nor is the power itself is not in question, but clearly abused without regard to laws of man and reason. Any rules, statement or promise to dissuade senators from asserting this Constitutional rule is self-evidently unconstitutional.
The threat of cloture has been the needed catalyst to free the Senate to assert inherent legislative authority at all time – not simply when another branch perceives the weather is favorable.
Article II Section 2 is not the unique headpiece of the Executive. Rather, the Constitution is a woven tapestry, where powers of one branch weave with the fibers of the other two. It is this intertwining in every detail of the cloth which produces the greater cloth – to protect us from the cold wind of tyranny.
It is the interweaving of the fiber which produces the whole – as single strand does not take precedence; nor can any thread long ignored evaporate. It remains awaiting the thawing winter whose sweet nectar blossoms into the sweet fruit of liberty.
The Senate’s constitutional power cannot be limited by Presidential statements when the Constitution explicitly grants that unique, inherent, expansive legislative authority to the Senate.
The President has already abuse power – but the Senate assents to that power – in violation of the constitution. A state proclamation may soon arrive, challenge that abuse of power and mandate an investigation and Senate trial.
The rules are guides and must support the Chamber’s inherent authority to engage in constitutional exercise of power. The court needs to strike down all rules which restrict the senate from exercising its duties. The court must strike down any rule -- made in violation of the rules -- prohibiting the Senate from reviewing during extended debate matters of Presidential power.
Each Chamber may define the rules of its proceedings. That proceedings cannot defer, confer, create, or destroy power.
We encourage voters to review the non0-sense the executive has used to induce Senatorial coma. No one may top the balance of power. The balance remains fixed in eh Constitution. It remains to be seen whether the Senate asserts it power with grace or recklessness.
* * *
This filibuster must call the question: Is this man fit to hold office. The President has one option: His oath. The states must review the following issues.
Have state resources been used to support an unlawful Presidential rebellion
If the President’s rebellion spreads, can the State’s refuse to permit their resources to support the rebellion?
Do the state officials have an obligation to act; and if they fail to act are they personally liable under Article IV Section 4 for supporting a rebellion?
What sanctions might state officials face if they are judged to
[a] condone illegal use of state resources;
[b] fail to investigate when they are given fair notice that the President plans to use state resources to support his rebellion;
[c] actively support the rebellion despite statements to the contrary that they were not aware of or involved in the unlawful Presidential rebellion;
[d] failing to remove self from a criminal conspiracy when the state official knew or should have known they would be for an illegal Presidential rebellion?
What happens if the President deploys troops in a domestic police action in the states, but there is no NSA data to justify the deployment of these troops in the state?
Can states take action to defy a rebellion?
What is the liability if states violate Article IV Section 4 by supporting, failing to stop support of, an unlawful Presidential rebellion?
Can states work together with a foreign power to oppose an unlawful Presidential rebellion against the Constitution?
The states need to consider the issues of Nuremberg and war crimes. Unlawful use of military and state militias
1. Legal liabilities [court, litigation]
2. What does the oath require [proclamations, discipline]
#. What must end [money, support]
* * *
The extended debate has the following objectives:
Organize for Lawful conviction and removal of President
Come to an agreement on the list of evidence, and standards of evidence needed to lawfully remove the President from office.
The Senate will move toward closure on the standards of evidence and claims required to lawfully remove him from office during the conviction phase.
Review the list of abuses to present to the House, ensure the focus of the NSA investigation in the Senate Judiciary addresses the concerns of the voting Senators
The filibuster must continue through the NSA hearings, until the House starts the investigation; and the nominee either removes himself from the appointment process, or the President is subsequently impeached with a State Proclamation. Once the impeachment vote is take in the House, the Senate will move to the trial and subsequently remove the President from office.
Assert Article II Section 2 Checks and balances
Outline the Senate agenda to check the President
Move toward agreement on a Congressional transformation needed to assert inherent authority against a President in rebellion against the constitution – how the Senate will upgrade and asserts it inherent power to check the Executive.
Mobilize Local voters
The states have a role. The voters have a voice. The States will act if the Congress fails to meet its obligations of their oaths of office.
Filibuster starts the open discussion on transition issues from the current President to his replacement.
Filibuster is the start of the 2006 election – but this is about placing the next President in the transition and Congress. The voters should choose carefully when considering who they elect to Congress.
The voters must choose a President that is committed to increasing NSA-like monitoring for Congress to check Executive Power.
The senate manning is subject to turmoil. All senators in Classes I, II, and III are subject to expulsion, and replacement if they defy their oaths of office and support an unlawful Presidential rebellion; they can be replaced by the State officials.
If the DNC fails to assert the rule of law, the voters must consider this when evaluating who they trust to assert the oath and rule of law in the state and federal elections.
Discipline Senate Membership
Win over DNC senators who appear to support the RNC in this unlawful Presidential rebellion, otherwise they bring discredit upon their service, and fail to assert their oaths to preserve the Constitution.
Question the Senators who want to end the filibuster: Which oath are they asserting, which President are they checking; what facts and evidence are they using; what is the scope of their analysis; how do they read Article II Section 2
The arguments used to justify inaction have no merit. Document the facts related to the RNC-DNC arguments to ending the filibuster: Checks and balances destroyed, non-sense arguments, rights lost, tyranny affirmed, oaths ignored
Show the RNC arguments in the Senate are at odds with their positions which defend the President’s similar assertion of authority
Overview of filibuster philosophy
The DNC will not freely give up the right to debate.
Shutting down the filibuster shows the nation does not want to know fats, and moves without regard to the rule of law.
Identify the issues we need to discuss: What information do we not have with respect to the NSA and the rule of law;
Filibuster is a movement to spark issues, present grievances, assert the rule of law and oath – encourage state officials do the same in preparing the State proclamations calling for an impeachment, and reviewing the plans for a Constitutional convention.
Recognizes that the filibuster starts the open debate we should have had in re Patriot Act and Iraq WMD: Facts; can we believe President; if this was a surprise, what do we say about the analysts who say this was not a surprise – many warnings prior to 9-11, unlawful NSA monitoring, yet there was insufficient coordination with Congress.
Show the calls to end the extended debate are inappropriate, especially when the Senate rules on constitutional matters say the debate must continue. The issue isn’t the nominee, but Article II Section 2 inherent Senate power to question whether the senate assents to the President’s power.
Those in the DNC who vote to end the debate should be censured, and expelled; the State Governors should replace the DNC members who defy their oath to assert the rule of law and Article II Section 2. All DNC funding to DNC members who support ending the debate terminated, arguably in support of an unlawful rebellion.
The RNC should be forced to show their contempt for the oath, facts, and rule of law; demonstrate their arrogance toward the Senate using threats, disdain, absurd arguments; and willingness to use absurd legal argument to defend a President in unlawful rebellion against the Constitution, in defiance of his oath.
Important: Supreme Court
The Judicial Branch can fend for itself. Justice O’Conner remains an honorable Justice. She is free to withdraw or modify her resignation letter at any time.
Read more . . .