Does US Congress Want War From We the People

Ref GOP Threats of a Filibuster will not give the President the additional money he needs to escalate. The GOP is distracting attention from a failed policy, and pretending it has power.

Ref Constitutional confrontation With POTUS over Iran attack. The President needs something new if he plans to attack Iran.

Ref We the People are allowed to craft a New Constitution, and may lawfully destroy the GOP, NeoCons, and Senate.

* * *

The American public has been told, not asked, to put up with the NeoCon-GOP non-sense going on for more than a decade. Americans, like the Iraqis and Taliban, are not required to assent to abysmal US governance. No where in the Constitution has the Congress been delegated the power to wage illegal warfare.

* * *

We the People may legally craft a New Constitution and lawfully compel those in the US government to appear before the new court system to explain their refusal to assert their oaths.

The GOP plans to filibuster and effort to block the Congress from checking the President. However, the House does not have the power of the filibuster to block impeachment.

The GOP will have to explain why they are blocking efforts to discuss illegal activity; but they are doing nothing which will compel Congress to pass legislation. if the GOP will not let the Congress provide a statement of concern, there's little to suggest the GOP is being cooperative; or that the "next step" -- shutting off funds for the requested change -- would be inappropriate. It is the GOP that is being uncooperative.

Nor is there any rule which, as the GOP threatened, for the DNC to preserve filibuster. If the GOP would like to assert a power they said the DNC, if it exercised, would warrant the "nuclear option," then the DNC needs to accept: It naively refused to assert powers which the GOP wants to assert.

* * *

Expansive, New Combat Zone Requires Expansive, New Congressional Authorization

The American leadership may or may not accept that We the People have spoken in the election. We are not required to continue supporting a government which refuses to assert its oath; and otherwise expands combat operations beyond what is legally defensible.

To say that US forces will remain "until the job is done" is not a credible legal argument. Rather, it is the burden of the US government to explain, in the absence of a legal foundation for war, why illegal activity has been funded; and why appropriations, in violation of Article 1 Section 9, continue to support illegal surveillance activities and violations of Geneva.

* * *

We the People are not required to remain subject to this Constitution. We agree, until there is a New Constitution, to comply with these rules, but we are not required to stick with what is not working. We may create a New Document which substantially removes the discretion of Senators to threaten to continue illegal activity.

We the People have not been given a clear, convincing legal argument that the continued combat operations in Iraq or Iran are lawful. Barring that demonstration, We the People have the right, power, and authority, to enact a New Constitution which would retroactively make illegal all ongoing activity in Iraq and Iran which has defied the Geneva Conventions.

This President, in arguing for "finishing the job" has not finished this job, but is expanding the job to include combat operations outside Iraq in Syria and Iran. This proposed use of force is one that the Congress needs to debate.

The President has not been given the power to expand combat operations outside Iraq.

If the President were to use combat forces in Iran, this would be a war crime; and also an illegal use of non-appropriate funds which are only permitted to support the original intentions as they related to Iraq.

* * *

If Congress refuses to find the President's planned use of combat forces in Iran is illegal, then We the People will have to consider the US Congress to be in rebellion; and that We the People may lawfully draft a New Constitution, finding that the current problems must be resolved through international assistance.

Congress has more powers than the power to deny. It must give the President the funds he needs to expand combat operations against Iran. As Iraq, Iran is not connected with 9-11, but was supportive of US efforts in Afghanistan. NO case can be made that the "mandate" of Sept 2001 would implicate Iran nor warrant the original AUMF against Afghanistan against Iran. As with FISA, Congress should review the scope the president is applying any AUMF, and compel a clear showing -- which has not been done -- on why the Iraq AUMF is or is not being applied to Iran.

The President has not been delegated any powers to wage perma war. We the People retain that right to lawfully enact a New Constitution and lawfully find the US Congress has illegally violated its oath; assented to violations of Geneva; and substantially expanded combat operations beyond the first illegal arena into a second. These defy the Geneva conventions.

* * *

If the Republicans would like to trigger another Constitutional crisis by blocking with a filibuster a call by We the People -- through the US Congress -- to speak openly, then arguably, Congress is no longer relevant as a forum for We the People to do business. We can reasonably conclude that We the People should find another forum -- not limited to discourse -- which may lawfully impose the laws of war on those who choose to ignore, violate, or otherwise not fully enforce the Conventions as their oath provides.

It is the burden of the GOP to explain, in the absence of evidence, why blocking Congress to issue a finding is a solution; while they offer nothing.

There is no requirement Congress provide funding; nor does Congress, under a threat of a filibuster against a non-binding resolution, need to assent to GOP threats. The GOP is threatening to do something that is meaningless.

Give the President the reciprocal response: A meaningless pile of cash for his meaningless plan -- Nothing.

* * *

We the People also have the power, right, and inherent duty to assert our powers, and ensure all evidence related to this Constitutional blunder is presented for the world to review. It is our job to remind the world that there is adult leadership, regardless the excuses Members of Congress provide to arguably abdicate their power, not assert their oath, or illegally support unlawful appropriations for combat operations which are illegal and substantially jeopardize the prospects that American citizens are secure.

These proposed actions are not consistent with the Constitutional requirement all Members of Congress have to ensure there is an enforcement mechanism. If the Conventions cannot be enforced by Congress through a threatened cancellation of funding, then the US Congress is no longer a passive observer but complicit with these alleged war crimes.

But the burden rests with the President and his alleged war criminal friends to explain, without funds, how he plans to wage war. The burden is on the President to compel the House to provide funds.

It is a separate matter whether the House, as it did after Sept 2001, rubber stamps something. Where Gates says he is not sure about a timeline, the Congress should not be sure about providing more funds. Where there is uncertainty, the President has the burden to clarify; Congress has no requirement to, as it did after Sept 2001, to throw money in an uncertain cess pool.

* * *

We the People retain the right to enact a New Constitution which would prohibit Members of Congress from exercising prior restraint; and we may conclude with adverse inferences that the GOP leadership has one goal: To prevent the Congress from enforcing the laws of war.

Prior restraint is not a requirement We the People need to respect. Rather, we may use the GOP effort to block efforts to speak about these alleged war crimes as evidence they are not part of the solution, but complicit with the illegal activity.

Efforts by the US Congress to find that the President has engaged in illegal activity; or has engaged in a reckless course of conduct, amounting to impeachable offenses, could be an issue of interest to war crimes prosecutors:

___ Did the US Congress retain, use, and exercise all powers to end the illegal warfare;

___ Once the illegal activity was known, did Members of Congress follow up on the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

___ Were members of Congress willing to assert their power and block funding for illegal activity

___ Were members of Congress complicity in thwarting open, public debate on illegal activity?

___ Once the reckless war plans were implemented did the Members of Congress forward or suppress evidence of illegal activity?

The GOP has no power to block the Congress from doing what it has the power to do -- issue a proclamation in the form of an impeachment. The threat of a Senate Filibuster is meaningless on issues before the House. No Senator can threaten a filibuster to block a trial; nor can any Senator compel the Congress not to exercise its impeachment powers.

If the GOP would like to make meaningless threats, give the President meaningless respect. Impeach him not once or twice, but multiple times. The President, in his confusion, will not be able to argue for war when he is occupied with his defense.

Had the framers intended the President to be immune to impeachment during war, they would not have created the Constitution: The Constitution exists to prevent a tyrant from abusing his power in war and leaving us with debt. The impeachment power and the required Senate Trial is the forum which the House can use to impose discipline.

A President is only immune to the law when the President, We the People, and Congress jointly accept that the Judicial Finding is that the law does not apply. What the President, Members of Congress, or we the people believe has no relationship to whether the courts do or do not prosecute him. Until then, the Congress has the power to remind the Senators that threats to block action will inspire reasonable requests that other options be used. If Senators will not permit Congress to speak, there is only one other option -- the power to assert power.

If there is no resolution finding that the President is engaged in a reckless path, then the Senate should be compelled to silently listen to the evidence. Where the Senators choose to invoke the filibuster to compel Congressional silence, that Senators should be reminded, during the trial phase, that the other options -- including speech -- were denied. There were no other options but to compel the Senator to remain silent.

Filibusters are meaningless to support new legislation. They only work to block Congress from speaking. We the People delegated to the House the power of the House to compel the Senate to be silent. Where the GOP Senators wants the Congress to be silent, We the People have delegated the authority to non-Senators the power to compel Senatorial silence.

Senators who threaten Congress with a filibuster to compel Congressional silence shall be reminded that the Senate shall be compelled to remain silent during the trial phase of the impeachment-removal process. Where a Senator says that Congress must be silent -- despite nothing compelling mandating that silence -- that Senator shall be reminded that the House, not the Senate, has the exclusive power to compel the Senators to remain silent while the Senators are sitting through the conviction-trial phase of the impeachment process.

If the Senators do not like to be told to remain silent during the conviction-removal phase, those Senators should not threaten the Congress with silence. We the People retain the power to use the House to punish the Senate; and the Senate is denied the power to have any say or influence whether the House does or does not arbitrarily, without reason, and regardless of the Senate filibuster power, to compel the Senators during the conviction-removal phase of impeachment to remain SILENT.

* * *

Congress has no power to prevent We the People from creating a New Constitution. Should Congress not assert power but assent to illegal warfare, We the People may conclude that this system of governance cannot be sustained; and we should implement a New Constitution.

Where Congress refuses to engage in oversight, and end reckless combat activity which does not belong in a civil war, We the People may make adverse inferences:

___ Members of Congress are substantially in violation of their 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and may be lawfully targeted by state prosecutors for failing to enforce the State right to a republican form of government;

___ Members of Congress who "concede" anything to the President are complicit with illegal activity;

___ Members of Congress, who despite the reservations of the combatant commanders, continue to support illegal warfare, and refuse to end appropriations for what is not working, can be adjudicated to be complicit with war crimes.

* * *

If America's leaders, despite their oath, want to make excuses to continue what is not working, We the People are not getting the promise we agreed would be provided: An enforcement mechanism to prevent illegal violations of Geneva; and ensure all use of combat troops are for lawful purposes.

There is no connection between the Combat troops in Iraq and the 9-11 attacks; and the President's illegal activity started before Sept 2001.

If the NeoCons and Republicans want to continue illegal warfare, We the People have the reasonable basis to continue with a New Constitution.

The Republicans may be able to thwart efforts to enforce Geneva, but they are not immune to war crimes tribunals, or a finding by We the People that a New Constitution is needed which substantially denies to Congress and the President the discretion to wage illegal warfare; or continue with reckless policies that refuse to adjust or embrace what might be more reasonable efforts to work with Iran or Syria.

* * *

We the People retain the right and power to craft a New Constitution; make findings which conclude that the US Congress and Members of Congress are individually in illegal rebellion against the US Constitution; and delegate ourselves the inherent right to wage war against a Congress that continues to engage in reckless defiance of the Geneva Conventions.

This power does not exist under this Constitution, but a New Constitution has been drafted which would recognize this inherent right of all people to compel their government to assent to the rule of law.

Congress has no power, and has been denied the power to wage illegal war; or continue to recklessly violate its oath of office by leaving the US Constitution in its inferior state. The President has no power to continue illegal warfare; and no Member of Congress can compel anyone to enforce Article 1 Section 9 which prohibits spending funds on illegal warfare.

* * *

If Members of Congress are not serious about enforcing the Constitution, and blocking funds for illegal warfare, then We the People and the US Congress should go our separate ways.

We've given you the respect of electing you to assert your oaths, but you refuse. Even the prospect of additional combat losses is insufficient to deter or compel Members of Congress to end illegal warfare.

We the People and the Constitution are no longer in the same universe as the US Congress and American government. It's as if they believe they can pretend their elected officials while they recklessly refuse to assert their oath; and expand illegal warfare, all the while refusing to enforce the Constitution.

We the People need to create a New Constitution that will prevent this absurdity.

* * *

A New Constitution could, in situations as this, legally recognize the inherent power of We the People to lawfully remove by force the US government from office. This power is not lawful; but the power to remove by force is one that Jefferson reminded may have to be asserted when tyrants are given undue respect, but those charged to challenge the tyrant, refuse to do their jobs.

The law allows the state to commit acts of violence against Criminals. Under this Constitution, it is illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. However, A New Constitution change this deadlock and legally permit violence by We the People to legally overthrow, and remove by force the US government when it wages illegal warfare, refuses to assent to the Geneva conventions, and illegally expands combat operations against non-imminent threats. The US government, by failing to check this illegal abuse of power, has made American less safe and effectively destroyed the objective of the US Constitution: To grant us more blessings together than we might get alone.

A New Constitution could be drafted that would recognize there are lawful, permissible times when violence can be legally used; and permitting, and not punishing any actual or planned use of violence. These speculative threats of violence are not lawful under this Constitution. This government has demonstrated that it believes the threat of violence against other nations is what is required to preserve American values. It would be fitting if the same US government, for eternity, were subject to the same arbitrary standard of review and consequences.

A New Constitution could legalize the random, arbitrary use of force by We the People, especially when the Government shows contempt for all laws prohibiting like abuse of power. Again, this is not an advocacy for violence or a violent overthrow of the US government. Rather, it is a recognition that a New Constitution could legalize this threat of force and lawfully compel the US government to come to the table when it puts itself above the law, wages illegal warfare, and otherwise refuses to enforce the oath of office requiring the Constitution to be protected and held in a superior position.

If the US government does not like the potential reality that a New Constitution could legalize the threat of force by We the People, the US government should stop using actual, illegal uses of force to compel non-Americans to assent to barbarity. We the People delegated only the lawful use of force, not the illegal use of force to the US Government with This Constitution. A New Constitution can change that delegation, and explicitly reserve to We the People, the inherent right to use like force, especially when the US government puts itself above the courts, Supreme Laws and International Obligations.

A New Constitution could codify and remind all future generations that there are times when the US government, in putting itself above the law and refusing to assent to the laws of war, can be legally targeted in the forum this Government prefers to suffer continued defeats: The battlefield. If the US government would not like this New Constitution, it would be appropriate to obey the laws of war, not remain eternally vulnerable to like defeats by foreign fighters.

The error is to abuse power thinking only foreigners may or may not object. A New Constitution may self-delegate lawfully the inherent power and right of We the People to wage lawful war against the US Government when it is not longer willing to assent to its agreements; wages illegal warfare; refuses to honor the courts; defies the laws; and otherwise prefers defeat on the battlefield than amicable, peaceful resolution of issues of power in the courts, legislature, and public forums.

This does not advocate violence or the violent overthrow of the US government; nor does it discuss the benefits of overthrowing the US government. Rather, this note only discusses the benefits of lawfully creating a New Constitution that would recognize the inherent right of We the People to exercise inherent, inalienable rights including the right to assert power and force against the US government when, at times, is unresponsive to the law, Constitution, and defeats on the battlefield. The objective is not to engage in violence; but the opposite: To legalize that eternal threat of force which the US government has inappropriately illegally reserved and delegated to itself the right and power to abuse.

Congress is denied the power to make a New Constitution. We the People have the inherent right and power to create and impose a New Constitution at any time. We the People must remind ourselves that we are the source of all power: The US government was not delegated the power to wage illegal war; rather, We the People may legally through a New Constitution recognize the inherent right of We the People to assert all powers we retain against the US government. We the People are superior to the US Constitution and US government; but we are also agreeing to remain in compliance with this Constitution, we agree to remain under this Constitution. This agreement is not eternal. We may also agree, without consulting the US government, to arbitrarily create a New Constitution which expressly does what the US government most enjoys abusing: The random abuse of power.