Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Phony Presidential Power

Fatal to the President's legal defense before The Hague is the acknowledgement the President has been asserting non-delegated powers in his signing statements. These Signing Statements, with the attached non-privileged White House communications, may be legally entered into evidence for purposes of adjudicating violations of the laws of war.

The President may not assert any privilege to hide communications related to his assertion of non-delegated judicial or legislative power. The existence of these illegal White House and DoJ Staff memoranda have been inadvertently disclosed in their entirety.

These memoranda reveal the scope of the DOJ Staff and White House concerns. Justice Department and White House counsel are concerned, because of these memoranda, that the President may not be able to survive a trial before the Senate. After their existence was inadvertently disclosed, these memoranda become admissible to any court.

The memoranda point to specific actions the President took to knowingly assert, under advice of counsel, non-delegated powers which intrude on powers only delegated to the Congress and the Judiciary. The President, White House staff, and DoJ Staff Counsel are aware these memoranda have been inadvertently disclosed, and they have no credible legal plan to prevent their admission to any court.

The President is not expected to politically survive a Senate review of these legal matters.

* * *


Article II only delegates to the President a single power. War crimes prosecutors may introduce into evidence all DoJ and White House Staff communications and memoranda related to these phony powers which the Constitution did not expressly delegate.

The President has no legal standing to claim any privilege related to any staff communications related to non-Executive powers. All Presidential assertions of powers, as they related to Legislative or Juridical powers cannot be lawfully shielded by Executive Privilege.

There is no joint "Judicial-Legislative-Executive" privilege which the President must rely to shield these staff communications. This privilege, if it were real, would unconstitutionally permit what is expressly required: Separation of Powers.

All Presidential power is for the President to prove is linked with the Constitution. Until the President is forced to explain his phony power in the well of the Senate, foreign fighters are likely to assume the US Government is disconnected for written law, illegitimate, and subject to lawful attack, invasion, and intervention.

Addington, Yoo, and Gonzalez twisted the Constitution, pretending that all written law, when it was made discretionary, created new Powers. This is illegal. The Constitution only delegates to the President one Power: Executive. All others assertions in any Presidential signing statements are illegal, unenforceable, and amount to an illegal assertion of Judicial and Legislative Power by the President.

War crimes prosecutors are encouraged to review the following discussion as a basis to piece the President's likely claim of Executive Privilege. This claim cannot be lawfully made when the President is (unlawfully) asserting non-delegated Legislative and Juridical powers.

Phony Presidential Power

The Congress, when it refuses to challenge the President’s assertion of legislative power, shows it is incapable of self-governance and new leaders are required.

Executive Privilege Does not Shield President’s Legislative-related and Judicial-related Actions or Memoranda

Privilege can only be claimed when it relates to a delegated power. Executive Privilege does not protect Legislative or Judicial matters.

Executive Privilege Does not Protect the President’s Legislative- or Judicial-related Memoranda

The President may not claim legislative privilege for his non-delegated legislation assertions of power. The President may not rely on Executive privilege to protect his non-Executive-power-related actions; Executive privilege is not absolute may only protects legal memoranda related to Executive-power-related-decisions; but does not protect non-Executive related actions outside his lane in the Legislative Arena.

We seen o evidence that the White House and Congress have been co-located; nor has there, last time we checked, been a change to Article I delegating to the President some of the Legislative Powers. Where there is no express delegation of Legislative Power to the President, the President may not claim Legislative Immunity, Privilege; nor can he broaden his Executive Privilege claim to include non-Executive-assertions-of-power which includes the powers only delegated to the Legislature. Where the Constitution does not delegate any legislative power to the President, the President may not claim Legislative immunity; nor may the President claim Executive Privilege shields his Legislative-related-assertions of powers.

The correct approach would have been for the President to request a change to the Constitution, asking that some legislative Powers be delegated to the President; and the President might be able to assert he has Legislative immunity. It is not correct to pretend that Executive Privilege shields non-Executive assertions of power. Where there is no express delegation in the Constitution of Judicial Power to the President, the President may not rely on Judicial Privilege to shield his Judicial-related assertions of power.

The Chief Justice has no authority or power to delegate any Judicial Power to the President; nor may he legally assent to this non-delegated assertion by the President of Judicial Power. We find no evidence that Chief Justice Roberts has delegated in any letter to the President any power or authority for the President to exercise Judicial Power.

Singing Statements Are Fatal Admissions of the Existence of Non Privileged Legislative- and Judicial-power related Presidential Memoranda

Once the President engages in illegal activity, and exits the Narrow lane of his sole Executive Power, that illegal activity cannot lawfully be protected. The President cannot credibly argue the courts will recognize Executive Privilege for the President’s assertion of non-delegated judicial or legislative powers. The President’s error is to fail in properly requesting Legislative Privilege related to his Legislative-related powers; and Judicial Privilege related to his Judicial-related powers.

War Crimes Prosecutors May Have Unfettered Access To All Presidential Memoranda Asserting Legislative or Judicial Powers Which Are Not Protected By Judicial or Legislative Privilege

Executive Privilege only protects the narrow executive power-related decisions. Once the President and DoJ Staff engage in non-Executive-related discussions, in their alleged illegal assertion of Legislative or Judicial powers, those memoranda are not related to pre-decisional communications. The President’s pre-decisional communications are only protected when the communications and decisions are Executive. All Executive actions asserting Legislative or Judicial Powers are outside the protected lane. The President’s communications are only protected when they are related to Executive Power, which he has only one [ 1 ], no more.

Once the President asserts Legislative or Judicial Power, that assertion of power is not lawful; and all communication related to that assertion of non-delegated is not a lawful communication; cannot be protected; and cannot be shielded with any Executive Power.

We have no record or evidence before us that the President has changed the Constitution to assign himself Judicial or Legislative power; nor is there any evidence which the President can provide showing that the Chief Justice or Speaker of the House or their legal counsel have jointly agreed to extend either Legislative or Judicial privilege to the President.

However, if there is silence by the Supreme Court or the Speaker of the House, and they assent to this meaningless Presidential assertion of Legislative or Judicial Privilege to shield the President’s non-Executive-power-related communications, then the issue becomes:

___ How did Speaker Pelosi memorialize her agreement to remain silent on the President’s assertion of Legislative Power or Privilege?

It would be helpful if the Speaker through counsel would provide a friend of the court brief the next time the President, in effect, asserts Legislative Privilege after he has illegally asserted Legislative Powers related to non-delegated Legislative Activity.

___ How did Chief Justice Roberts memorialize his agreement to remain silent on the President’s assertion of Judicial Power or Privilege

It would be helpful if the Chief Justice through counsel would provide a friend of the court brief the next time the President, in effect, asserts Judicial Privilege after he has illegally asserted Legislative Powers related to non-delegated Legislative Activity.

___ Is there any plan by any of the counsel working for Chief Justice Roberts or Speaker Pelosi to remind all people that the President may not credibly assert Legislative Or Judicial Privilege on issues which related to the President’s sole power: Executive?

Perhaps the DOJ Staff President would like to properly request Legislative and/or Judicial Privilege related to Legislative and Judicial Actions of the President. Until then, the German war crimes prosecutor is encouraged to narrowly construe Executive Privilege; and enter into evidence as fatal admissions all Presidential signing statements as evidence of assertions of non-delegated Judicial-Legislative Powers.

* * *

Signing Statements -- Linked With Non Privileged Judicial and Legislative Decisions – Are Fatal Admissions, Inadvertent Disclosure, and A Reasonable Basis to Broaden Discovery into Presidents Non-Delegated Assertions of Legislative and Judicial Power

Either the President can appear before the War Crimes Prosecutor and provide evidence that his assertions of power were correctly protected by Legislative or Judicial Privilege; or the court may make reasonable adverse inferences:

1. The President illegally asserted non-delegated judicial and legislative powers, and self-defined his Geneva violations as lawful, when he knew, or should have known, they were illegal;

2. The President in asserting that Iraqi – not US Congress -- Rules of Engagement prohibited US troops from doing something, shows that the President does not universally recognize the theory of the Unitary Executive which, in theory, does not permit non-Executive players from affecting things under the President’s command.

3. By changing his position after Hamdan, and removing prisoners from Europe to Guantanamo, the President accepts as true that Geneva applies, regardless of his statements to the contrary in his signing statements

4. All signing statements are illegal orders and the President knew, or should have known, these signing statements were inducements to others to breach their Geneva Obligations.

* * *

Admissibility of Signing Statements

This discusses (a) the admissibility of all legal memoranda connected with signing statements; and (b) the failure of the President to credibly claim executive privilege for non-executive assertions of power.

* * *

All Presidential Actions Unrelated to Executive Power Are Not Protected

The Bush Administration approach to power relies on circular reasoning. Let’s consider how Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo and others have approached power:

(1) Step 1: Define an option, or create a broader view of statutory guidance
(2) Step 2: Introduce discretion on a mandatory requirement
(3) Step 3: Assert that a newly created option, outside the intent of Congress, is a power
(4) Step 4: Assert because this (newly created-phony) power exists, the President’s power cannot be constrained by the law
(5) Step 5: Assert because this (newly created-phony) power exists, the Congress has no role to constrain this (newly created-phony) power
(6) Step 6: Assert a given statute which provides lawful ministerial guidance, is blocking the (newly created-phony) power and (incorrectly asserting) cannot be enforced because it limits the (newly created-phony) power.

When asserting ministerial options are powers, Addington and the President have relied on this circular reasoning to create phony power, thereby generate unquestioned support. There is no legal foundation to sustain lawful support.

By asserting that an option is a power, Addington has circularly argued that the newly created power cannot be reviewed. All Presidential actions are ministerial; there is only one power which the Constitution delegated: Executive power.

The President’s assertion of multiple powers is legally irrelevant, and an illusion of something which does not exist. No Member of Congress need to rely on the President’s circular arguments related to his phony powers.

* * *

Phony powers need not be recognized. A needed constitutional confrontation would openly attack this circular argument.

The burden is on the President to prove his actions, assertions, and excuses are legitimate. The President uses frivolous legal arguments, propaganda, and the smokescreen of foreign crisis to distract attention from these circular arguments.

* * *

The President, when he created these phony powers started the Constitutional confrontation. A reasonable response would show:

A. How phony power was created;
B. The relationship of these phony powers to FISA, NSA, Geneva abused, and illusory defense
C. The invalid basis for the President’s plans; and that there is no basis to have confidence in the President’s asserted results
D. The President and others are engaging in abusive, reckless conduct and are not fit for office.

Refusing to have a confrontation with the President enables the phony power and is irresponsible of Congress.

Phony powers hinge on phony legal arguments. Causal observers can easily notice the problems. The scope of the abuse and entrenched absurdity means the only defense for the President is the accusation that the observers are being critical.

The President has not communicated he will change, nor amend his ways to return under the Constitutional umbrella. He must be lawfully removed from office.

* * *

Admissibility of Signing Statements to War Crimes Tribunals

The singing statements are admissible for purposes of compelling other legal documents related to these post-decision actions.

The President has no power to make a legislative or judicial decision; all legal memoranda related to these signing statements are not pre-decisional, but evidence related to alleged legal cooperation to undermine the rule of law; and illegal attempts to create, craft, and assert non-delegated legislative and judicial powers.

When the President makes a signing statement he has fatally done the following, all admissible, contrary to his interest, and is probative on matters before war crimes tribunals. A signing statement is a fatal admission that the President:

A. Has reviewed the statute;
B. Has consulted legal counsel on the law;
C. Has received legal advice on the law;
D. Has made a decision, beyond what he has been delegated, to exercise, or attempt to exercise non-delegated judicial and executive power;
E. Made a willful, conscious decision which he has memorialized;
F. Knew, or should have known the statement was, or should have been known, to be outside the President’s sole executive power; and that he is not making a legally relevant decision related to a power he has been delegated
G. Was make a statement that was not related to a legally defendable or protected decision, but was a personal opinion intended to assert non-delegated legislative and judicial powers;

All legal memoranda related to this non-executive decision are not related to a legally protected “pre-decision” debate or discussion, but are part of a non-protected statement not related to any legal decision making authority the Constitution delegated.

The President has not been delegated any power in the Constitution to block judicial review of these illegal memoranda; nor block with privilege information not related to an official exercise of non-delegated powers.

The President has not been delegated any power to claim executive privilege on matters related to criminal law; nor may he point to any legal authority which protects memoranda related to non-lawful decisions lying outside his narrow, sole power: Executive.

The Constitution did not delegate to the President the power to be above judicial review or to insulate him from examination by Grand Juries or the US Congress. The Constitution does not grant the President the power to craft illegal memoranda related to non-delegated powers; nor can the President rely on any legal theory to protect documents which are not related to lawful decisions when those decisions are beyond what the Constitution has delegated.

Criminal activity cannot be privileged especially when, as is the case, the President is hiding evidence, records, and discussions related to his illegal assertion of non-delegated power. Once the singing statement is revealed, this opens the barn door to discovery of all legal memoranda related to this non-delegated power. The President may not credibly rely on a legal defense or claim of privilege when the decision is related to legislative and judicial decisions. The error was for the President to disclose the signing statements, but not expect this adverse information to be used against him.

Until the President fully cooperates with discovery of all legal memoranda related to these illegal signing statements, the signing statements shall be admitted into the record, on their own, as evidence the President:

- Was reckless in not tailoring his decision to his narrow, sole power: Executive;
- Knowingly made statements hew knew, or should have known, were not Constitutionally authorized
- Knew, or should have known his memorialized statements amounted to inadvertent disclosures related to reasonable inferences about legal memoranda wholly unrelated to any lawful exercise of power
- Knew or should have known that the legal memoranda connected with this signing statement were not protected in that they were not related to a lawful decision
- Knew or should have known that all orders related to this illegal assertion of powers could not be lawfully classified under ORCON or any other rule
- Knew or should have known that the claim of privilege related to these non-delegated powers cannot be recognized in that the privilege only applies to one power: Executive;
- Knew or should have known that Executive Privilege only applies to his sole power of Executive Power; and does not apply to the Executive memoranda actions related to his openly admitted exercise of legislative and judicial power
- Knew or should have known that the President cannot use Executive Privilege to suppress information about the use or non-se of Legislative or Judicial Power
- Knew or should have known that Executive Privilege is not a delegated power, but a privilege which the court is not required to recognize when the privilege is claimed by the President for non-Executive actions, memoranda, discussion, or other things the President and his legal counsel should have known belonged in the Judiciary or the Legislative branches.

* * *

Discrediting the Implied Power Theory

If the Framers intended for the President to have multiple powers, they would have listed them. In contrast to the first lines of Article I, the framers never mention any multiple powers for the President in Article II. The framers only mention executive power, not Executive Powers; nor do they mention The Power of Pardon; only that Executive Power includes an option of the President to pardon someone.

Addington and others have stretched the Constitution, and asserted that the Constitution has delegated many powers. This is incorrect. The President has only one power: Executive; under that power is the option to do or not do something.

However, Executive Power by its definition is a legal responsibility to administer the laws. Where the President does not enforce the law, he is not exercising executive power, but malfeasance. There is no legal power of “Malfeasance Power.”

It is incorrect to assert that other options like pardons or vetoes are separate powers. Again, the Constitution does not specifically define veto as a power, but mentions the option indirectly in Article I where the President has the option to do nothing on a bill, but include comments and response. This is hardly the basis for Addington to point to the Constitution as precedent for asserting the President has separate powers in Article I. The power to do nothing is not a power, but an option under the umbrella of the President’s sole power: Executive.

* * *

Discrediting the Inherent Power Theory

The President has one power: Executive. His responsibility as present is to administer the laws. His assertion that the laws permit him to do things is illusory. Only the Constitution permits the President to do anything; all laws are guidance how the President will or will not assert his single power: Executive.

There President does not have inherent powers [plural] He has one delegated power, and nothing else. There is basis to assert that his actions are not subject to Congressional rules. The Constitution expressly delegates only to Congress the sole power to make rules regulating the performance of all US government officials.

Congress may delegate administrative rulemaking to the President, but this does not change the Constitution’s single delegation of one power: Executive. Congress has no power to create new power; nor can it assign to the President new powers beyond what the Constitution permits: The single power of Executive.

Once Congress makes a rule, the President has no legal authority, and the Constitution expressly denies him, the power to exercise anything other than Executive Power. Signing statements amount to Legislative Power which the Constitution expressly delegates only to the Congress; choosing whether the law is or is not lawful is a power only the Judicial branch has been delegated. The President has not been granted the power to make a signing statement; nor make a legal decision whether he will or will not fully enforce the law. IT is meaningless that the President may believe he could do something when the Constitution does not delegate him any power to engage in legislative activity or judicial interpretation of the law.

* * *

Broad View of President’s Legal Problem

The President has illegally asserted non-delegated judicial and legislative powers. He cannot claim executive privilege for legislative powers; nor can he claim his legal memoranda related his illegal assertion of judicial powers is protected by a non-judicial privilege.

The President cannot claim a privilege for powers he was not delegated; the Constitution and Courts need not seriously consider requests that judicial-related decisions – which the President was not delegated – can be protected; nor can the President argue that the legislative rule-making qualifications he has issued can be protected by non-Legislative privilege.

The Constitution only delegates one power to the President: Executive. Attached with that sole power is the sole option that privilege for that sole power may or may not be respected. Privilege is not something the Executive can compel, only request. When there is a long string of abuses, the courts are less likely to show deference, especially when the President has intruded upon judicial power. It is a stretch for any lawyer to argue that the President in exercising non-delegated legislative/judicial power can, as a discovery shield, claim legislative or judicial privilege for legislative and judicial actions by the President.

___ Where in the Constitution does it delegate any legislative power to the President?

There is no delegation. Where there is no delegation of legislative power, the President may not claim legislative immunity on legislative decisions; nor is there a reasonable claim of legislative privilege by the President on his legislative qualifications only delegated to Congress in Article 1 Section 7

___ Where in the Constitution was the President delegated any Executive Privilege?

Executive Privilege is a privilege, not a power, which only the courts can recognize. The President may not claim privilege as a separate power. Had the frames intended for privilege to be a power, they would have referred to this delegation in the plural form in Article II There is no plural delegation of any power to the President. He has one power: Executive. This power does not include any power to compel any court to recognize immunities and privileges which they are not required to recognize.

___Where in the Constitution was the President delegated any Legislative Privilege to hide pre-decisional memoranda related to his legislative decisions and other qualifications on the law which amount to an assertion of legislative power?

The Constitution does not delegate to the President any legislative power. He may not claim legislative privilege related to his non-authorized legislative decisions. Had the Framers intended for the President to have any legislative power, they would have included that express delegation in Article I. There is no express delegation of power in Article I to the President. The President has no legislative power, and cannot reasonably expect any memoranda related to his non-authorized legislative actions to enjoy the comfort of Executive Privilege which only relate to his sole power: Executive.

___ Where in the Constitution does it delegate any judicial power to the President?

Again, there is no delegation of any judicial power to the President.

___ Where in the Constitution does the President get to compel anyone in any court to recognize a non-delegated power?

The President has no power to compel anyone in the Judicial Branch of Government to do anything. Judicial power is not reviewable by the President. Permitting the President to assert that he alone can decide the courts cannot protect his illusory claim of judicial privilege would amount to further evidence in his signing statements that he is illegally asserting non-delegated judicial power. Geneva does not permit the President to assert non-delegated powers when reviewing whether the laws of war do or do not apply. Geneva requires the Conventions to be asserted and enforced. Once the President claims that Geneva does not apply he has made two errors: First in not meeting the legal requirement; second in exercising judicial powers to make a decision beyond what he is lawfully allowed to make. Once the President exits his narrow Executive lane, the German war crimes prosecutors may lawfully compel all memoranda related to these non-executive powers. Failure to cooperate could result in a lawful adjudication that the President and others have been complicit with illegal efforts to block a legal investigation into war crimes. IT remains a matter of law for the German war crimes prosecutors to decide whether the DOJ Staff, in supporting these non-delegated-assertions-of-non-executive power have or have not been complicity with War crimes, and could similarly be adjudicated with the death penalty

* * *

There is No Power of Arrest

There is an act of arrest. Arresting is not a new power, but one that falls under the umbrella of Executive Power. If Arrest were a real power – which it is not – then it would not be reviewable – which it is – by the courts. Real powers cannot be constrained by law.

However, it is circular to argue that something which is beyond the President’s authority to do is a power, when it is illegal.

Again, the President has only one power: Executive. His job is to enforce the law. That is his only obligation. How he uses forces is governed by law. He has reviewable conduct when he wages war. When the President wages illegal war, he can be prosecuted. If the President had real power to wage war – which he does not – he would be able to wage war in any manner.

The President does not have “The Power” to wage war, he only has one power: Executive. The President may, if he complies with the rules which Congress passes, use combat forces in a lawful war. Because the President cannot illegally use combat forces, he cannot claim that he has a separate power, above and beyond his single power: Executive. Real power would permit him to do anything that he wants; he cannot.

- -

The error of the US Government and world population has been to pretend the President’s assertion of an option is or is not a power. The President has one power: Executive. All things he does under that Executive Umbrella of a Single Power is not a new power.

The error for the world has been to embrace the fiction that, with each assertion of an option, this creates a new power. The Constitution delegates to the President only one power; he has not been delegated the power to create new power; nor assign himself new options, while calling it unreviewable power.

It is not reviewable whether the President has Execuive4 Power. What is reviewable is how the President uses this Executive Power. Only Congress has the power to decide whether the ministerial acts will or will not be codified with precision, or broadly given to the President as a requirement with wide latitude. The President has no power to influence the requirements of the law unless he sends his comments to the Legislature and they include those concerns and provisions within the bill.

Where the bill does not include these specific statements, the President may not legally assert Legislative Power; nor devise new options or exceptions which Congress did not intend, as documented in the original bill. The President may not point to non-documented language or agreements. If the President would like to rely on non-documented agreements; or agreements that are outside the bill, as are signing statements, foreign fighters may lawfully conclude US leadership is not based on written law, but on something that is illegal. This satisfies the Geneva requirement that force may be lawfully used against illegitimate governments that move beyond written law. The President’s signing statements are reviewable by foreign fighters who may lawfully conclude the US is illegitimate and may legally invade to provide a legitimate government. The error was for the US Congress and President to jointly agree to Geneva provisions permitting foreign fighters to invade countries that are not legitimate and bring about governance that is an improvement. Foreign fighters may rely on the precedent of NATO intervention to Yugoslavia as a basis to legally justify their humanitarian intervention to provide law and order to the United States.

If the President would like to insulate America from expanded combat operations, the way forward is not to create illusory enemies in Iran; but to focus on resolving the legitimacy problem this President has with signing statements. Illegitimate governments do not have written law; this President relies on non-written law to assert non-delegated powers. Foreign fighters may lawfully work with others to restore legitimacy to the US government

* * *

Big Picture on Presidential Power

The President has one power: Executive. The time the United Sates spends under the incorrect perception that he has many powers creates more momentum in the wrong direction: The false perception that the President may assert many non-delegated powers. He has no power.

America’s problem is not overseas, but in the reckless refusal to constrain the President to the single lane he has been delegated: Executive Power.

The President does not have a separate power to question; he has only Executive Power to assert. No one is required to answer any Presidential question. All people are permitted to exercise their right to silence. The President has one power: Executive; all other actions are acts, not separate, new powers.

The slipper slow is when people like Addington read the Constitution, create new powers that were not expressly delegated, then attach that approach to statutes in the form of signing statements. The Executive is not delegated any power to create new power; nor find exceptions in the language to craft things Congress did not intend.

All of Addington’s assertions of Presidential power – in the plural form – are things which Addington and Cheney will have to prove are real. No one should accept the fiction that the President has multiple powers; or that the President’s assertion of an exception to a rule is lawful; or that his devised exceptions are new powers. The President has one power: Executive. Nothing else.

* * *

The error is for Addington and the President in the signing statements to assert that any statement intrudes on power. This is circular.

The President has one power: Executive, attached with that is the requirement to fully enforce the law, not make exceptions.

The error is for the Congress and Judiciary to silent permit the President to assert Judicial and Legislative Power. Silence by the Legislature and Judiciary means foreign fighters may lawfully intervene to restore legitimacy to the US government. It is illegal for the President, as he has done, to assert Judicial or Legislative power in signing statements.

The President’s executive function, by design, is only to administer the law as Congress direct. War is not something that the President can wage without regard to the law. Where the law regulates conduct, there is no new, unreviewable power – only a ministerial duty to fully follow the law when waging war.

Only Congress can declare war. Where there is no declaration of war, the President has no legal standing to compel anyone to assent to his claim that he is commander in chief. He remains a manager, required to follow the law; even if there was a war, the President may not use combat forces without regard to the law. Where law constrains the President, the President has no absolute discretion. The President does not have unreviewable power to wage combat. He has reviewable ministerial duties binding him to ensure the war is properly managed. This President has not managed this combat, as he is required; but attempted to rely on resources and plans which do not exist. This is malfeasance. The President’s failed administration of this combat

FISA is a lawful act of Congress. The President has no power to wage war; he has only Executive Power, with the attached requirement to follow the law. The President does not have the legal claim that he has unreviewable power where there is no lawful power or delegation. Without power, it is irrelevant whether the President believes a statute does or does not intrude; it is a requirement.

FISA and Geneva are the tools to regulate the President when he asserts his sole power: Executive. The President does not wage war; combat troops wage only lawful war. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Where there is no declaration, there is no war; where there is no war, Congress is not required to support.

When Congress provides arms and munitions, but the President wages illegal war without regard to those constraints, the President has poorly administrated the resources which Congress has provided.

There are no war powers, there is only one power: Executive. There is no Executive War Powers Act [plural]; there is only the legislative powers [plural] of Congress to raise, support, train, and provide for combat forces. All DoD Acquisition efforts belong in the Legislative Branch, not under the Executive. All DoD-related activity connected with training, organizing, and maintain an effort should be transitioned from Executive Control, and put under the direction of the Speaker of the House.

The way forward is to accept that the Congress has been illegally denied the power to do what it alone has been Constitutionally been delegated the power to do: Raise an army, provide for its support.

The error is to believe that the President can employ troops, then blame Congress for having not done what they are not required to do: Support something they do not support; or do something that they are not required to do: Make troops available which do not exist.

The error is to spend more money on things which cannot be created; and not turn the attention to the President for having recklessly used the finite resources. The President alone decided to expand a war disconnected from a plan. That is sufficient to find maladministration of Congressionally-provided resources.

* * *

Congressional Challenge

As we dig into the phony powers of the President – of which there is only one: Executive – the more we will find that Congress is assenting to things which do not exist in the Constitution.

When we challenge phony power – and call it what it is, circular – the Congress is reviewing whether the President is or is not asserting his sole power legally.

The error is to believe that a challenge to the President is a criminal matter. IN truth, it begins with something fundamental: A recognition that the President is doing something that he has not been delegated to do with his sole power: Executive.

___ How does Congress challenge the President’s assertion of Legislative Power? They have to recognize it. The error is to embrace the fiction that the President has many powers which the Congress cannot review.

This is Constitutional Fiction which Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee, and Cheney have perpetuated. It is absurd. Arguably, all legal counsel who have embraced this myth are reckless, defective, and incompetent. It is the burden of the President and all legal counsel to show where the Constitution delegates to the President in Article II more than one power. It was not done.

Where there is only one power, the legal counsel shall be DENIED credibility when they assert Executive power in the plural form. There is no veto power, it does not exist. There is only the opinion of the President to do nothing. That is not power, but a ministerial act, which Congress has the power to regulate.

The President may choose to do nothing, but Congress may prescribe rules related to the manner with which that decision to do nothing on a bill is executed. The so-called Veto-power – which does not exist – can be regulated, codified, overseen, and aggressively prescribed with exhaustive rules to which the Executive shall fully comply.

Addington and Gonzalez have no power to rely on the phony “Veto Power” as precedent to then expand their arguments to suggest there are other unreviewable powers. This is incorrect. Addington and others are allegedly under investigation and face indictment because they fail to comprehend that the President – with one power – must conduct combat activity according to law, not as he desires. The law regulates how combat force is employed because combat is not a power, but an act, a choice, and is reviewable by the courts. When combat activity is not lawful, and it is disconnected from the law, but the court refuse to review the matter, the Judicial Branch is recklessly failing to enforce the law, and silently assenting to the President’s use of force. This amounts to illegal Judicial Branch assent to Presidential assertions that his overt acts are or are not lawful without a fair showing in court.

There is no record that the President shall be distracted by the law. DoJ Staff during combat operations, make comments and respond to legal reviews. Combat is not a shield to legislative or judicial review. The laws exist relating to combat; and the President has no standing to argue that the President’s conduct during combat operations are not reviewable. All Presidential activity is reviewable. The only thing that is not reviewable is whether the President does or does not have one power: Executive.

If Congress declares war, the President may be commander in Chief. When Congress does not declare war, the President shall not be Commander in Chief. Someone else, including the Speaker, may be Commander in Chief of the Militia when it is called into Service to suppress a President’s illegal rebellion; or his refusal to assent to Congressional oversight of his alleged illegal activity.

* * *

The President’s problem is that he has illegally asserted Judicial and Legislative powers. These are not delegated. Rather than permit Judicial Review of his assertion of non-delegated powers, the President has created the fiction that he has “new powers”.

People who have raised questions about this abuse have been targeted. US Attorneys who have questioned the abuse of power have been demoted.

The President and NeoCons are relying on propaganda and war to muddle the minds of America’s leaders. The error is for him to expand illegal activity with phony assertions of power.

Congress’ error is to buy into the phony description of power. When the President asserts power not delegated which belong only in the Judicial and Legislative Branch, the President is engaged in criminal activity: He has not been authorized to make rules nor adjudicate that his conduct is lawful.

The American President is not longer a lawful leader. He has no legal authority to compel US combat troops. The real authority lies with Congress which can raise a militia to arrest, detain, and prosecute the President for his ongoing criminal activity.

The error is for Congress to buy into this non-sense, and believe that the President’s criminal activity – if it is challenged – will have adverse consequences for Congress. This is meaningless and a ruse. The President has no other defense, other than to blame the accusers, for what he should know: He has illegally asserted non-delegated powers; and hidden his illegal activity related to Legislative and Judicial power behind a meaningless shield: Executive privilege which only protects acts under one umbrella – the single Executive’s sole power: Executive.

* * *

Some may suggest reviewing the signing statements, devising rules, and imposing these rules back on the President. This is a non-starter. When the President illegally asserts non-delegated powers, the answer is not for others to assert illegal activity. The way forward is to call this activity what it is: Illegal, resting only on a phony illusion of power.

A Constitutional Confrontation started when the President illegally asserted Legislative and Judicial power. Congress has no power to block or prevent what has already started – the Constitutional confrontation by this President.

The question is whether Congress will or will not faced reality: The President is asserting non-delegated Legislative powers; and has illegally asserted this use of non-Delegated legislative power is not reviewable, amounting to an asserted of a second non-delegated power: Judicial.

The President has no power to acquire Legislative Powers; nor can he assign to himself any Legislative power and call his sole power – Executive – plural.

* * *

Circular reasoning is at the core of this nation’s problem. The symptoms have been Congressional inaction on the Presidential abuses; and combat operations in Iraq. Until the nation faces the core problem – circular reasoning – the courts will continue to be infected with reckless counsel who are making excuses not to enforce the laws of war; or otherwise retaliate against Americans who attempt to fully assert their legal obligations as required by oath.

Foreign fighters understand what is going on. They’ve stood up to the abuse. Americans seem to have been lost in the fog, cowering in the corner, or lashing out at what is self-evident: American are intellectually lazy and not willing to call this disaster what it is – Mindlessness.

For America’s academics, who have provided rubber stamps to graduates, they have a hard time pointing to something that resembles backbone. Your graduates have no credibility. Americans pump out stupid people who assent to the non-sense from Addington. Rather than face your collective problem, you point to your credentials as an excuse to avoid scrutiny: Mindlessness.

American leadership will have to decide whether it is serious about using its mind, or mindlessly being used.

Americans who refuse to speak out must be presumed to have inhaled this delusional fog. Time for you to wake up, stop being defensive, and face this problem in the White House: There is a culture of circular reasoning that has not been challenged. Each American student that sees this non-sense but is not given the example of prudence with clear thinking, is getting a mixed signal: That it is “important” for Americans to learn to use their minds, just as long as they don’t use their minds. It’s a waste of time and resources for parents to pay for college or for Congress to grant student loans when the nation will only reward circular reasoning on a basic question of Presidential power: He has one power, as delegated in Article II, not many as were delegated to only the Congress in Article I.

It is a waste of time for America to educate people when you refuse to listen to those who speak using the education you have provided – the power of We the People to speak, challenge, and solve problems.

This leadership has corrupted the planning process, mobilized inadequate resources, and pretended that this is “something else.” Call it what it is: Presidential incompetence. The contractors working for the President, including SAIC, do not have a stellar reputation. They seem to be confused, despite their NYSE Stock listing, about what it means to solve a data arching problem in DoJ. What does America do? IT rewards the likes of SAIC with more contracts. Brilliant. So much for rewarding competence.

* * *

Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, and Bybee before the events of Sept 2001, had already devised illegal strategies. The illegal NSA surveillance was starting well before 9-11.

Their approach amount to asserting that the law is discretionary; and pretending that, when they ignore a requirement, this discretion is linked with a new power. This is false.

Bybee does not have the power to create, delegate, or devised new Powers. Bybee is not in a position to create rules which recognize non-existent powers. Nor does Bybee have the discretion as a judge to assent to powers which the Constitution did not delegate.

Indeed, Bybee appears to have done what the Nazi judges did during WWII: Assent to legal non-sense to recognize illegal assertions of powers. Arguably, Bybee should be specifically targeted for disbarment, and should be prosecuted under an impeachment. Unfortunately, the collective dementia in the Senate appears, for now, to be a stumbling block. There is hope.

Republicans in my party need to accept that there is a big problem: It’s called stupid people making stupid decisions; and stupid people asserting that the laws are discretionary, then inducting others to embrace the fiction that a non-allowed exception is a new power. It is not.

* * *

There is a common approach Americans are taking to the Constitution: They are using circular logic to pretend that the laws are not required. It doesn’t matter how you approach FISA, rendition, NSA, Guantanamo, or prisoner abuse.

The common problem has been the circular reasoning behind Addington’s arguably illegal assertion that the law is discretionary – it is not. It is a legal requirement, as was Hamdan. According to the record, Addington was aware of the illegal activity in Eastern Europe, but arguably recklessly refused to prevent the activity, stupidly arguing that, if they changed the prisoner location, it would have been an admission that the original treatment was illegal.

What happened? After Hamdan, they changed the position of the prisoners, moving them to Guantanamo. SO much for Addington’s credibility. He has none. Many Americans have been working with the German war crimes prosecutors to organize a legal strategy, and present the information to the German Courts. This is where you come in.

IN the coming weeks, the German war crimes prosecutors is going to need your help. Contrary to Addington’s assertion that the President’s conduct cannot be reviewed, We the People need to send a clear message: The President’s assertions of power are not related to Executive Power; but they are related to non-protected activities in the Legislative and Judicial Branches.

In short, when the President and NeoCons wok with the bloggers to perpetuate distractions and myths about Presidential accountability, your job is simple: To remind the President and the bloggers that the issue has nothing to do with Executive Power – which he has only one – but with his illegal assertion of Legislative and Judicial Power, as evidenced by his signing statements.

Then the zipper will come undone. Once the President argues that his misconduct is a power – which it is not – the burden will shift to the President to show that his assertion of non-delegated powers can be protected by Legislative and Judicial Privilege. It cannot. Rather, the error, which the leadership will slowly grasp, is the incorrect assertion that the President – in asserting Judicial or Legislative Power – can rely on Executive Privilege to protect non-protected, non-delegated actions. This is impossible.

The way forward is to remind the legal community that the evidence the President has – as it has been implicitly created to support the signing statements – cannot legally be protected under the doctrine of “pre-decisional memoranda.” Pre-decisional memoranda is only protected when it is related to a lawful decision. However, because the President is making decisions using Legislative and Judicial Power – which he has not been delegated – all action he is taking asserting these non-delegated powers are not lawful; and cannot be protected because they are not lawful decisions.

The President may only invoke Executive Privilege for lawful assertions of Executive Power. The singing statements are admissible because they are fatal admissions that the President is asserting non-Executive Powers. Attached with that fatal admission is the opportunity for the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors to compel the President to provide all evidence related to his assertion of non-delegated powers. The President has no legal defense; and the personnel involved with the illegal activity know they have a major problem.

The President and others are giving a wink-wink, nod-nod to retaliating against the legal community, especially when they oppose the President’s illegal assertion of non-delegated Legislative and Judicial Power.

Your job is to make contact with the legal community, understand their fears, and let them know that the problem is well understood by foreign fighters. The legal community cannot afford to wait. They will have to make a decision: Are they going to cower in the corner under the threat of possible threat of consequences; or are they going to possibly suffer with the guilt knowing they didn’t speak out, and remind foreign fighters that there was hope to restore American legitimacy in the form of written law.

Either way, there is a conflict underway. The President started it. Members of Congress cannot cower. Foreign fighters are prepared to wage lawful combat operations in American unless the US government wakes up, starts using logical, and lawfully challenges the President for his illegal assertion of non-delegated legislative and judicial powers.

In the meantime, foreign prosecutors – not necessarily in communication with US Attorneys – are attempting to do what the American legal community has largely failed to do: Impose oversight, bring about a sense of justice, and compel the President to assent to the rule of law and Geneva Conventions.

The problem for America is that your Congressional leadership, despite the Nov2006 election, has not woken up, and believes that paying nice with the President is a solution. This is incorrect. Impeachment is the means for the Congress to go on the record, and openly debate – on the record – whether the President has or has not used circular logic, created phony powers, and largely ignored the law.

The issue with impeachment does not start with the law or the criminal activity, but with the first step: The thinking behind the actions to do or not do things. The likes of Addington, Gonzalez, and Yoo have infected America’s collective thinking to believe that a violation of the law is a new power; it is not. The error is to spew forth fiction that non-authorized exceptions are new things and new powers; they are not.

The President has one power in the Constitution: Executive. He must follow the law. Because he is ignoring the law, and explaining that away as “power”, Congress is still, despite the 2006 election, not challenging the President. War crimes prosecutors in Germany and Italy are doing what Congress should be doing during an impeachment: Focusing on realty on the record.

* * *

Some in Congress believe they need to have endless investigations; and that there is no time. This is an excuse, and the fruit of convoluted thinking.

The same thinking which silently agrees to illusory Presidential power, is the same thinking which is embracing excuses not to do anything about it. Problems do not occur unless there is a problem, and that problem is not solved. The error is for Congress to embrace the absurd thinking about illusory Executive power, and enable the President to do more.

The NeoCons keep arguing that today’s decisions must look forward. That is incorrect. Before we can look forward, we need to examine the cloud that is hovering over the American mind: The cloud of stupidity that is celebrating the President’s assertion of non-delegated powers, and pretending that Executive Privilege can hide evidence of his Legislative and Judicial decisions. There is no basis for celebration, but focus and examination.

* * *

What Addington Did

Addington and other legal counsel went through the statues and Constitution and did the following:

1. Redefined illegal activity as a power;
2. Asserted phony power as a basis to commit illegal acts;
3. Illegally agreed that this phony power put their actions above review ;
4. Asserted the illegal activity was not constrained by law, despite it being a phony power and illegal act.
Short version: This is illegal, not defendable, but America isn’t challenging it.

What’s needed is the public to review the signing statements, and change the focus form issue of power to criminal activity in the context of Presidential assertion of Legislative and Judicial power.

The core message: WE the People see the ruse; and it is not a credible basis for public policy when criminal activity has been recast as a phony power.

When Congress refuses to face this criminal activity, the issue is not whether there is or is not impeachment; but whether the Congress will or will not face the circular reasoning behind the phony powers which have never been delegated. Call it what you want – Congress, until it Confronts the President’s phony assertion of power – as a single concept – will get caught in the weeds, evidence, and hearings.

Rather than make adverse inferences about the larger abuse of power – in creating phony power to justify illegal activity – Congress appears to be doing the opposite: Chasing evidence, but the Republicans are not cooperating. This is where you come in: Remind your Member of Congress that the issue is not whether there is or is not evidence; but what basis the President is using Executive Privilege to hide evidence of his non-Executive activity. This is impossible. Only when the Congress sees the broader pattern will they remove their focus from the evidence, and focus on the larger issue: To what extent has the President asserted non-delegated Legislative Power.

The current error of Congress is to buy into the non-sense that impeachment is off the bale, without exploring the core problem warranting impeachment: Non-sense, circular arguments creating phony power. Bluntly, the same stupidity which has assented to removing impeachment form the table, is the same stupidity which is permitting the abuse of power to continuing: Circular reasoning about phony power.

* * *

Your Turn

Let’s consider what Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo, and Bybee did with the Constitution. Make three columns, and you’ll see there is a problem:

Each of the illegal acts has been twisted in an Orwellian fashion into something that sound good. The President has twisted illegal activity into new powers.


A. Criminal Activity: Violate statutes
B. Phony Presidential Power: Power to decide FISA not relevant
C. Orwellian Propaganda: Illegal activity is for your security. [Insecurity is security]

A. Criminal activity: Violate Bill of Rights
B. Phony Presidential Power: Power to declare political opposition an enemy combatant, or deny them employment if they assert legal arguments contrary to the President’s phony power positions.
C. Orwellian Propaganda: We are intruding on the Bill of Rights to Protect Freedom. [Abuse is freedom]

A. Criminal Activity: Violet the Constitutional protections to a public trial.
B. Phony Presidential power: Power to detain people without access to counsel.
C. Orwellian Propaganda: These intrusions are for your protection. [When you are insecure in your homes you are safe.]

Go through all the Statutes, and the problem is the same: Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo, and Bybee have gone down the list, remained silent, and have allegedly recklessly defied their oath as attorneys, and created non-sense excuses to pretend that criminal activity is a new power. It is not, it is criminal. It doesn’t matter what excuses they are giving to suggest the illegal activity is justified. It is not justified. As with Iraq, the illegal abuse of power is making their so-called security problem worse: They are inspiring in the minds of foreign fighters the reasonable, well understood, and articulate legal argument that the US government is not legitimate; and that US government officials, and their reckless disregard for the rule of law, is the problem.

The way forward is for Congress to get the wake up call – which, despite the November 2006 election – they appear to have not gotten. Around the country, after the 100 hours, citizens are asking, “Now what do we do? What’s the agenda now?”

There’s one answer on the agenda: Send a wakeup call to your leadership, and compel them to focus on the problem: The assertion of phony power; and the circular reasoning Members of Congress are still using to avoid facing the illusory power which the President was never delegated.

As with the 603 effort, ask you State Legislators why they are not challenging this nonsense:

___ When was the last time your State Legislator read the first sentence of Article I and Article II?

___ Where are your State legislators finding any words that say the President has more than one power?

___ Do State Legislators realize the likes of Addington and DoJ Staff are arguing that the President has many powers, but the Constitution only says there is one [1 ] Article II power: Executive?

___ When did your State legislators review the illegal activity and find the common pattern of relying on phony power?

___ Which State level powers has the President intruded upon?

___ Do Members of Your State Legislatures and Assemblies realize that they have a duty to preserve the US Constitution, and this means to prevent the President from asserting powers only delegated to the Legislators and Judicial Branches?

___ Do your State Legislators understand how the President is illegally using state resources to support unlawful warfare?

___ What is the plan of your State legislator to work with other legislatures to gather evidence related to the President’s illegal assertion of Legislative and Judicial power to, without court review, assert that using state resources for illegal things is lawful?

There is no national emergency warranting this stupidity. The “big shock” was on Sept 2001. IT is 2007, going on six years later, two years longer than the four years after Pearl Harbor when combat operations ended in 1945.

The problem is the stupid assertion of Legislative and Judicial power by this President, and the Congressional enablers who refuse to challenge this President for his assertion of non-delegated powers. This is no different than what Hitler did in the 1930s and 1940s. America cannot point to the victory of 1945 as anything when the abuse of power, in the mind of this Congress, is “no big deal”.

Congress is either going to address this problem; or it is not. State proclamations are needed to send wakeup calls. Your State Legislators, at the time of the Federalist Papers, were though to be the check on Federal Power [Federalist 69, 84]. We’ve largely believed with modern media, that the public information does not have to be routed through the States, and people will understand.

In 2007, We must review Madison’s words in Federalist when he talked about the Bill of Rights not being needed. His argument was that we need not recognize any right when no one has the power to violate those rights. Madison has been proven right: We need not recognize any power when no one has the power delegated to them.

That is what Americans must do: Strip away from the President the illusion that he has may powers; or that his conduct is not reviewable. It is. Americans must be reminded of the sole power the President has; Executive; and that all other things are assertions of phony power, connected with illegal activity.

The President’s assertion of power is phony. As he grows reckless he will lash out. The way forward is to remain focused: What the President is doing is not connected with the single [1] power we have delegated to him. The Judicial and Legislative branches need a wakeup call: The President is illegally using the powers We the People only delegated to non-Executives. The clear message needs to be: Unless America resolves this issue, and confronts the non-sense legal arguments behind the phony creation of power, the States are going to bear the brunt of combat operations by foreign fighters. DC is only one location. The Governors are going to have to confront the spreading response which foreign fighters are lawfully permitted to impose.

* * *

Impeachment means pulling aside the curtain on these phony powers, and calling this what it is – Circular reasoning to avoid consequences for illegal activity. This President has created phony powers to illegally justify unlawful activity. These powers are not in the interests of We the People; they are illegal; and they are making us less safe.

The President has no power to support rebellion against the Constitution; nor compel anyone to see any benefit to his assertion of non-delegated Legislative or Judicial powers. Americans who support this illegal assertion of power need to step up to the plate and share with your friends: The issue is not illegal activity, but the abuse this President is imposing through his assertion of phony power which We the People never delegated. You can go around and around attempting to prove he did or did not commit a crime. It is self-evidence he’s asserting non-delegated powers, but pretending this is an Executive Power.

You need only look at the first sentence of Article II, and you will see the problem. All the evidence of illegal activity will fall into place. The issue is not whether the Senate will or will not remove; but whether the Senate is or is not serious about challenging the President for his illegal assertion of non-delegated powers; but pretending that he, as President, can invoke Legislative Privilege which only the Senate has the power to invoke.

___ Do Senators like the belief the President has that he can assert Senatorial privilege and claim, as executive, legislative privilege?

___ Are there not Senatorial Privileges the Senators would like to claim as their own?

___ Is there nothing about the Senate that makes it different than the Executive?

___ Is the plan of the next president, likely from the senate, to enjoy privileges as President they were not willing to assert as uniquely Congressional privileges?

America has seen the results of defective leadership and the mess in Iraq. Action taken to make us safe has made us less safe. Foreign fighters are lawfully standing up to this abuse. Similarly, when this President, in the name of safety and freedom, abuses powers he was no delegated we are not safe or free.

Members of Congress may not be ready to hear this message. The way forward is to simplify the argument: Until Congress wakes up to the phony power, foreign fighters may lawfully wage war against the Congress that refuses to challenge the phony power.

Congress must decide whether it would prefer confronting a President during impeachment; or whether it will confront foreign fighters on the battlefield.

* * *

Senators must decide whether they are willing to stand up to the President and assert their power. IF they refuse, and remain complicity with these phony arguments related to non-delegated Presidential power, then the Senate cannot be sure it will survive. Either:

A. The Senate will be, eventually transformed, into a body that is denied the discretion to assent or not assent to these causes; or
B. The Senate is transformed on the battlefield into rubble, lawfully permitted under the laws of war when foreign fighters conclude the Senate is not willing to challenge the President’s illegal assertion of non-delegated Legislative power.

Congress has a confrontation. The issue is whether the Confrontation with the President will be in the Senate, or whether it will be, through proxy, on the battlefield. It is a phony argument, and part of this President’s legal defense, to take the next step in his phony assertion of non-delegated power, and pretend that Iran or other nations are at threat. No, they are excuses and distractions. The real threat is We the People waking up, letting our Members of Congress know: The President has only one power; all other assertions of power are legislative, judicial, and illegal.

* * *

Consider the President’s problem. He is, in effect, known for what he is: Powerless, except for his sole Executive power. The President realizes the world knows he has run out of options in the courtroom and the battlefield. He has not well managed the resources he’s been provided. This is maladministration.

When someone is powerless, but for their sole Executive power, they have only one option to avoid accountability: Criminal activity, which can be measured by the following indicators of abuse:

- Deception
- Manipulation
- Propaganda
- Emotional abuse
- Lies
- Betrayal
- Intrusion
- Decisions contrary to the interests of others
- Abusing others, demanding them
- Asserting a right to win without regard to others
- Violating people’s boundaries
- Do only what he is able: Substandard conduct

The above list might as well have been taken from the list of abuses in the Declaration of Independence, as addressed in the Bill of Rights, our first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. They are from the list of things that people will do to abuse their scene partners in a Shakespearian play.

Shakespeare touches our lives because at the core of his writing is the truth: What people are capable of doing. All actors know they have the truth inside; and that all actors are able to release the truth to portray a villain, hero, saint, sinner, minister, or criminal. The choice is what we choose; the decision is what we permit to guide us.

This Congress chooses to let the President’s absurdity guide it. The way forward is not to waste time with more agendas – which have been ignored – but to refocus Congress’ eyes and heart on the first sentence of Article II: There is only one power: Executive. There will be resistance because attached with that reality is the required collapse of the American government’s false paradigm – That the President has something else. Attached with that reality is the rude reality that Members of Congress have been complicity with this fiction and have not permitted themselves to be guided by the words of the Constitution. The rude reality, when Members of Congress digest the first sentence of Article II, is simple: Members of Congress have fallen down in fully asserting their oath.

The way forward is not to pretend this Confrontation will not occur; it already has. The way forward is for Members of Congress to decide where, not if, they want to face the showdown. There are four forums:

A. The Ballot Box
B. Senate Well
C. Grand Jury
D. Battlefield

These are not things that Congress has the power to pretend do not exist, but are lawful checks on Members of Congress when they refuse to

* * *

A country whose leaders refuses to comprehend a single sentence of Article II are arguably uninspiring. The easy decision is to go back to your cable TV, catch the next episode of your favorite show, and relax.

It’s not the role of the world to govern America; but the world will impose order if Americans let this abuse of power to spread. The only reason this abuse continues is that Americans have jointly agreed not to call this President what he is: Phony, and relying on phony powers which Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo, and Bybee have crafted. IT is fiction. Article II is the only thing you need to look at. There is only one power; all powers the President is asserting in his signing statements are legislative powers. The legal community has been gagged. Your job, as an American citizen, is to realize that the legal community cannot help you unless you speak where the legal experts have been thwarted.

* * *

As with the Downing Street Memos and the non-sense going into 2006, your job as Americans is to keep faith with the Constitution. It is the only thing – and it is everything. The aim of Congress is to avoid the discussion on the phony Presidential power because they do not want to face the tough questions.

Once you look at the phony power, everything falls apart; and it will be easy to spot the problems with the President's arguments, defenses, plans, and legal strategy. In response, the Congress and President have implicitly agreed to target those who say what is real: This President’s power is phony.

All reasonable comments about the US government are connected with the core problem: Circular reasoning connected with all assertions of power. This concern is the basis with which the insurgents in Iraq wage war; and why the Taliban are refusing to lay down their arms. The same convoluted thinking that will not challenge the President’s non-sense power is the same convoluted thinking that embraces non-sense reconstruction plans; and defective excuses to transition US forces from one lawful theater into unlawful combat. The same non-sense used to unlawfully justify using contractors to abuse civilian prisoners is the same non-sense being used to ask that Congress do nothing about the phony power.

There was no evidence in Iraq because the President and others relied on phony power to dissuade action, oversight, questions, and fact finding. Supposedly America learned after Iraq: We need fact finding. Fine, then lets have fact finding on this phony power:

___ Why is Article II being broadly rewritten to include more than one power?

___ Where is Addington’s legal citation to point to more than one power in Article II?

He has nothing. Then challenge him. Call him before Congress. He cannot claim “Executive” privilege for his Legislative and Judicial activity: Rewriting laws, and asserting that he is not subject to the law. Addington could be impeached.

Strip him of his privilege: He cannot claim Executive Privilege for advise given for non-Executive action. Make Addington explain:

___ Where does the President get power to exercise Legislative Power?

___ Where does the President get any power to exercise Judicial Power?

The answer is: The Senate has implicitly delegated to Addington a phony power to claim that Addington is entitled to a privilege only a Senator can enjoy: Legislative privilege.

___ Where is Addington a member of the Senate?

All Americans should ask why Addington is claiming privileges of a Senator – Legislative privilege for non-delegated assertions of legislative power – despite Addington not being elected to the Senate.

___ What are the Members of Congress’ view of Addington pretending that he is a Senator, above legislative inquiry; or that his legislative-connected memoranda can be shielded by Executive Privilege?

Addington has no defense, and cannot lawfully claim legislative privilege for his legislative-connected acts; all communications he’s made are related to judicial and legislative decision which the President is not lawfully allowed to make. His memoranda can be lawfully seized; if it is destroyed, adverse inferences can be reasonably made: He’s been complicit with illegal assertions of non-delegated powers; and has broadly expanded the definition of Executive sole power to include criminal activity.

The error is for the Congress not to challenge Bybee – who relies on this defective legal memoranda to assert absurdly that the President is exercising a lawful power, when he knows or should now the President is exercising non-delegated judicial powers.

Bybee needs to be impeached and called to account.

* * *

Rather than make a credible defense and resolve this issue, the President is doing the opposite with Iraq and Iran – making a smokescreen to get the public to focus on another distraction, not the original problem: Circular reasoning as the foundation for phony power.

The President’s legal foundation does not exist, and he knows it. Congress is arguably defective in its reckless disregard for the President’s assertion of Legislative Powers. It makes no difference that the DNC won the 2006 election; we might has well have what we have had all along – a rubber stamping Congress willing to blindly assent to phony assertions of non-delegated, phony power which belong only to the Legislature and Judicial Branches.

All powers which this President has asserted – other than his sole Executive Power – are derived from We the People. Addington has no power to take that power and pretend it is in the Constitution. The first Sentence of Article II a single power for the President; Article I does the opposite and specifically mentions multiple powers for the Legislature, Congress. Article III is like Article I – there is only one power delegated to the Judiciary – One Judicial Power. Nothing else.

The President and Judiciary were intended to be checks on Congress. The Congress was seen as the replacement for the King. Read Federalist 69 and 84 if you want to know more.

Addington has effectively gone through the Federalist Papers and where it says words to the effect that Congress might be too powerful, he’s used that argument as an excuse to crate illusory power and assign it to the President. Unlike the Founders who were fearful of Congress and thought the President and States might check and Abusive Congress, Addington has made the Founders worse fear realized, but placed the abuse in the very office which the Founders expected would check the Congress: The President.

Where there was fear about Congress, Addington and others have crated phony power to make a real problem in the Executive.

* * *

Iran is part of the President’s litigation strategy. It is not a real threat nor a bonafide security issue. Think of Iran as a smokescreen to distract Congressional attention from the other Presidential defenses: That of activity targeting those who see what is going on.

Defense focus remains on those who are waking up. The aim is to make an example of them. Remember, you are not alone; and foreign fighters continue to impose lawful combat losses on the President. Sadly, foreign fighters are one of the allies of the US Constitution and they are lawfully checking the abused powers – something Congress should be doing, but is confused about.

You can expect the blogosphere to target those who are speaking about the real problem – the Congressional failure to challenge these phony powers with claims of “don’t be so cynical” or “how dare you” or “be realistic.”

Reality is the first sentence of Article II: There is only one power, none of Addington’s phony powers hiding the illegal activity.

* * *


The President and Addington argue that the Constitution and laws are debatable, for him to decide what they mean. This is incorrect.

We the People may similarly reciprocate and make something else debatable – this President’s power.

All Presidential power is phony unless the President appears before the Senate and makes a convincing argument that his power is not Legislative or Judicial. The President has the requirement to explain the basis for his assertion of legislative and judicial power.

The President is denied the power to claim executive privilege for something that is only connected with non-delegated judicial-legislative activity; the President may not hide behind the Executive shield when he is dancing as if he were in the Well of the Senate. Once the President exercised one Legislative power – which he was not delegated – the President may not compel any court or Congress to recognize any privilege related to that non-delegated power.

The President fatally disclosed the existence of these non-protected communications when he made a signing statement. A reasonable court could conclude that the President, in asserting non-delegated judicial-legislative power, cannot credibly claim that he has any executive privilege protection. Moreover, once the President disclosed in the signing statement his intention to assert legislative and judicial power, that amounts to an inadvertent disclosure that the legal memoranda from the White House Counsel and DOJ Staff are not related to a lawful decision; nor that the decision is protected; nor that the communication related to that action is legally protected; nor that the communication would amount to anything that can be shielded.

The President may only invoke Executive Privilege on decisions related to Executive Power. When the President assert legislative power, all memoranda related to that activity is admissible, not protected, and cannot be shielded by any privilege available to anyone in the Executive Department..


___ Which signing statements assert Legislative or Judicial power?

___ Where is the President granting himself privilege to assert legislative power?

___ Which DoJ and White House staff communications are related to the illegal activity unrelated to the sole Executive power?

___ Which decisions, because they are not related to lawfully assertions of Executive Power, cannot be protected by Executive Privilege?

___ How is the President asserting Executive Privilege to hide his non-authorized communications related to non-Executive actions?

___ Which memoranda related to non-delegated judicial or legislative powers have been illegally suppressed?

___ Which DoJ Staff and White House Counsel brought into the nexus have illegally asserted that documents are related to Executive decision, but they are really an action outside what the President has been delegated in the Constitution?

___ Do DoJ and White House counsel staff comprehend that they appear to have claimed privilege for a document that cannot be reasonably connected with the President’s ole delegated Executive power?

___ Which communications related to the President’s non-delegated and judicial decisions have been illegally shielded using Executive Privilege?

___ Which court has assented to giving the President privilege for matters outside what the President can lawfully claim Executive Privilege?

___ How doe the court reasonably argue that the President’s assertion of non-delegated powers can be protected by non-delegated privileges?

___ Where is there precedent for a President to protect Legislative and Judicial decisions and the communications related to those non-delegated powers behind a privilege unrelated to the Legislature or Judiciary?

___ What is the Courts view on the President using Executive Privilege to hide his communications related to non-delegated actions related to only Judicial Powers?

___ Is there any reasonable explanation why any court should grant to the President any “Executive” privilege for communications related to non-delegated judicial powers?

___ Does the Court reasonably review the inadvertent disclosures made in the Signing Statements, and reasonably make adverse inferences that the President’s communications with staff are not reasonably connected with delegated powers; but those communications are related to illegal activity including the assertion of non-delegated powers?

___ How does the court explain ignoring the implications of the signing statements and not comprehend that the disclosures in the signing statements amount to fatal admissions about the context, substance, and nature of the implicit communications that would have had to precede these assertions of non-delegated judicial and legislative power?

___ When the court reviews the context of the signing statements, do they comprehend that the signing statement amounts to a fatal admission and inadvertent disclosure that the communications preceding that signing statement are unrelated to executive power; and unprotected because are related to activity that is non-delegated to the President, and related to legislative and judicial power, outside the protections of Executive Privilege?

* * *

The Agenda

Some have asked what the New Agenda should be, especially now that the DNC has (apparently) run out of things to do. The legislative agenda is different than the Constitution.

Arguably, with the non-sense floating around that the President’s phony is real – which it is not, except for his one power: Executive – the same convoluted thinking is going to cloud the debate (as intended) on the issue of Iran. Iran is a smokescreen,

Our job should be to refocus the agenda on the real problem: The convoluted thinking that pretends the President’s power is real. It is not.

Once the President exists his lane, has the burden to prove his assertion of privilege is real, connected with a lawful decision, unrelated to non-delegated powers, and is a lawful communication for a lawful purpose. This is impossible.

The President’s illegal intent of the claim of privilege is not to protect Executive-related communications; nor hide things related to a Executive-related pre-decision communication, but to do the opposite: Hide evidence that the communication was about the assertion of non-Executive power; cannot be protected; and cannot be shielded by Executive Privilege. There is no single-combined "Executive-Judicial-Legislative" privilege, as the President would require to shield these Legislative-Judicial-related-power communications from any public review by Congress, Courts, Grand Jury, or We the People; it is illegally in contravention to the separation of powers.

The way forward is for the Congress to be energized to realize that the original circular arguments have blossomed into something absurd: The President is attempting to use Executive privilege to hide communications related to Legislative Power. Only Congress can claim this privilege; and it is not lawful for the courts to recognize a shield which does not exist; nor attach a shield to a power, communication, or decision whish is not lawful, nor connected with a lawful purpose; and is disconnect from a lawful delegation of power in the Constitution.

Article II, when reviewed, will reveal the opposite.

A. The decision is not lawful;
B. The communication is not for a lawful objective
C. The intent of the communication is not to support an Executive Decision
D. The goal of the communication is to support an illegal Executive act
E. The illegal activity is the unlawful assertion of legislative and judicial power by the Executive
F. When there is an unlawful purpose, and the communication is not related to a delegated power, the defendant – the President in this case – cannot claim a privilege for something he is not entitled; nor can he lawfully claim that his activity is a decision: IT is an assertion of non-delegated power, unrelated to his delegated power, not a lawful assertion of power, and all communication with that illegal activity is not protected by his privilege.

It is the burden of the President to respond and justify to the Congress and Court that he is not doing something that he is not allowed to do. The President cannot credibly argue this:

1. The activity is not connected with an express delegation of power
2. The President is asserting a power he was not delegated
3. The President’s communications have been disclosed in signing statements
4. All legal reviewed related to these signing statements do not amount to pre-decision communications; the Presidential actions are not lawful assertions of power, and the communications are not connected a lawful decision, and cannot be protected.
5. When there is communication that is not connected with a lawful decision, the illegal decision, and all commutation before that decision are not protected, but become evidence which is admissible because the intended purpose of the claimed privilege is not to protect Executive consultations, but to hide consultations unrelated to Executive power, having only a connection with Legislative and Judicial power.
6. When the President engages in legislative and judicial functions, all communications, as revealed in the signing statements, can be presumed to have been inadvertently disclosed; they are not secret; and there is no bonafide claim of privilege by the Executive because the activity is not related to a lawful delegation of power; but the opposite: An illegal assertion that the President’s activity are lawful, while he knows or should know that the activity is an assertion of non-delegated Judicial and Executive Power.

* * *

If the President does not cooperate with providing these non-privileged, communications [unrelated to a lawful decision], and adverse inferences may be made:

1. He is not fit for office and should be lawfully removed from office;
2. The President and others have crated phony powers to ignore the Geneva Conventions, and have attempted to hide evidence related to war crimes related activity they knew, or should have known they had a duty to prevent;
3. Prisoners and American civilians have been illegally abused despite laws requiring Presidential respect for the law and people;
4. The intent of the legal defense is not to defend the President, but to limit the scope of reasonable inquiry, and insulate the Geneva-related implications attached to Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff for their having refused to prevent war crimes; and their refusal to shut down funding for illegal activity
5. The intent of the defense is to pretend that the legal issues are narrow, when they are broad: Alleged war crimes by civilians, and an effort to avoid a public discussion of the possibility American civilians could be prosecuted and adjudicated with a war crimes, punishable by the death penalty.

* * *

All Presidential assertion of power -- but one: Executive -- is illegal and illegitimate, and not a lawful assertion of power. These are issues of importance to combatant commanders and military personnel when deciding to use or not use combat forces. When the Presidential orders are not lawful, but ride on the back of an illegal assertion of Legislative and Judicial Power, the President’s authority is non-existent. Arguably, all military personnel relying on these illegal assertions of non-delegated powers have a legal problem: They knew, or should know, that the President cannot engage in Legislative or Judicial Activity; and that the President’s sole power – Executive – is something which is regulated, constrained, and tamed by Statute in how and the form that sole power is employed.

Military Personnel will have to consider the following: If the President’s power is unreviewable, why is there a 5100.77 Laws of War Program?

The answer: The President may not use military force illegally; and all Military Personnel in the 5100.7 Laws of War program have a duty to review these legal issues:

___ Is the President illegally asserted power he was not delegated?

___ To what extent are these orders related to power only delegated to the Legislature or Judiciary?

Military personnel do not have an obligation to conduct a coup to remove the President from office [this is illegal], but the opposite: The duty to refuse to obey all orders which rely on phony power, and are connected only with Legislative or Judicial powers the President was not delegated.

* * *

As the President expands his abuse, he can only sustain his abuse if he induces more people to believe in non-sense. The circle of abuse will widen, and can only be sustained if he imposes greater abuses.

The error is for Congress to explain away the abuse, take impeachment off the table, and ignore the real problem: The circular argument behind Addington’s crafting of phony power. Until Congress is willing to confront this circular argument behind the phony power, the President will enjoy Congress wasting time chasing evidence he plans to hide behind his newly minted (phony) "Executive-Legislative-Judicial"-privilege shield. One phony thing leads to another. The goal should be to put the burden on the President to explain the connection between his phony power and the Constitution. There is no connection; but the burden remains one for the President to wrestle, not for one to Congress to avoid. The burden is on the President to justify confidence that has asserted power is real, legal, and connected with the Constitution.

Military members take an oath to protect the Constitution. That does not mean active action is required; rather, passive inaction is legal when any adherence to those illegal orders cannot be justified, especially when they are linked with the objective of distracting attention from other illegal activity.

Protecting the Constitution means not recognizing the powers which are not real; and accepting that the President has illegally asserted non-delegated powers when justifying his combat operations. This does not mean that military personnel need to actively refuse to obey orders; rather, the objective should be the opposite: Throw it back on the President, White House counsel and DOJ Staff to show:

___ Where in the Constitution does the President have the authority to assert legislative power?

___ Is there a reason that the President, DoJ Staff, and White House staff are making up non-sense excuses to threaten people to be silent about this abuse of power?

___ If the President was doing nothing wrong, why is he not willing to have his US Attorneys openly review the evidence of the criminal activity in the GOP?

___ Is there a reason why the President, if he is doing nothing wrong, is prompting people inside the FBI who are stupid about the rule of evidence, and have poor supervisory skills?

___ If the President want to know the truth, why is he unwilling to listen to the truth about the other options for resolving issues in Iraq?

___ Why should anyone believe that the President is serious about solving a problem when he blames those who have offered solutions for not providing new solutions?

___ Why should anyone believe the President is competent when he ignores plans he’s requires; but asserted an agenda disconnected from lawful power?

People who are stupid should not have power or authority, especially when they are surrounded by stupid lawyers who make legal arguments which require more levels of absurdity to digest.

* * *

The burden is on the President to justify, without relying on nonsense, why anyone should believe his assertion of power is lawful.

___ Where is the evidence?

___ Where is the compelling argument?

___ What in the Constitution is linked with this Executive Power?

___ Why does it appear the President is relying on non-delegated powers to shield himself from scrutiny?

___ Why does it appear the aim of this shielding is to hide criminal activity?

___ How many powers does Addington plan to create to hide new lines of evidence and crimes, pretending that the illegal activity is the “New Power of the Week”?

War crimes prosecutes, of they are unable to get cooperation, may recommend to heads of state that combat be used to lawfully intervene, seize evidence, and broaden combat operations against an increasingly isolated US government.

___ What does the new CentC0M commander hope to do: Call on the Navy Squids of Annapolis to pretend there is something specific in the memorized recitations which would sway the public?

The New Centc0M commander should know this: NAVY personnel are not required to remain complicit with war crimes, especially when the President is asserting non-delegated powers to compel NAVAL operations. NAVY commanders have a problem: They have little comprehension of the mischief at the lower levels.

___ When was the last time the NAVY did a random check of the ship-to-satellite communications?

___ Why is it known outside the NAVY that the US troops [plural] are not satisfied the US government and President are competent to manage the issues in Iraq?

The military personnel are talking, they know, and We the People need to support them: They need a new President.

* * *

We the People need to send a simple message: The President must give We the People a compelling reason why we should listen to him on anything.

Until the President cooperates, on issues of power, not the law, the President shall be presumed guilty until his power is connected with the Constitution. The Signing statements are sufficient evidence to show otherwise.

The President cannot assert exceptions to the laws, invoke nonsense, or make non-sense augments to defend himself. We the People need to reject this exercise of non-delegated power, and ignore the orders and direction: “IT is not lawful, and we need not recognize that illegal assertion of power by someone who was not delegated that power.”

No action is required. As with all things, We the People have the power not to respond.

* * *

The President’s power is a function of illegal activity unlawfully recast as a power. The reasoning is based on non-sense, abuse, and propaganda.

The Presidents plans in Iraq are failing because he has stupid people assenting to phony power who do not realize they are being abused, manipulated, and given non-sense. They perceive themselves as having no other options. They have options: The Constitution and the reminder in Article II that the President has only one power: Executive.

* * *

Notice the similarity with House Rule 603 discussions: The questions, request for action, and need for the public to discuss these issues with state level leaders. The Job of We the People is to share whether State-level officials are or are not responsive:

___ Do State level leaders comprehend the scope of Presidential orders connected with non-delegated judicial and legislative activity?

___ Do State level leaders see that criminal activity rests on the back of logic errs?

___ Do the State officials see that the President is recasting criminal activity as a “new power”?

Criminal activity, like phony power, can only continue unchallenged when non-sense and circular reasoning continues. When Congress refuses to challenge the President, they are saying that they would prefer to remain confused with convoluted arguments about phony power, and embrace another distraction. No wonder the DOJ and White House Staff hold the Congress with contempt: They are manipulated and refuse to prevent the President from asserting Legislative power.

There is a problem. We the People know; and the DoJ Staff has been foolish in documenting these non-Executive-related activities; and they have believed that their memoranda will be protected. This is incorrect. Once the President asserts non-delegated powers, all communications related to that illegal use of power are not protected, but can be introduced as evidence of what the DoJ and White House staff knew, or should have known, what was outside what the President was lawfully able to do. Nuremburg imposed the death penalty on civilian legal counsel including judges who assented to non-sense arguments not to fully assert the law.

* * *

War crimes prosecutors would like your help:

___ Who is complicit with this non-sense?

___ What are the rewards for violating the law?

___ What is the thinking in memoranda, notes, and briefings to induce silence about this illegal assertion of non-delegated powers?

___ Which leaders have been threatened with silence?

___ Which US government contractors have been targeted for special emphasis because the contractors are raising doubts about the legality of the orders?

___ How have civilian leaders been threatened or rewarded to do nothing?

___ What have been the reasons civilian leaders are not exercising their minds to challenge this legal non-sense?

___ Do you have evidence of meeting minutes, decisions, or other presentations?

___ do you have copies of signed policy memos?

___ Do you have copies of budgets, plans, or other things with numbers on them that auditors or accountants might be able to review?

___ Dou have evidence of contracts being awarded for keeping silence about illegal activity?

___ Have government officials been promised rewards, jobs, or other things if they provide contractors with information about upcoming decisions unrelated to the President’s lawful authority?

___ How has the President’s assertion of non-delegated legislative and judicial power been used to reward people for silence on this illegal activity?

___ How are corporations being rewarded for supporting retaliation?

___ How are corporations being rewarded for not fully enforcing their reporting requirements related to carnal activity or illegal abrogations of the US Constitution and Geneva?

If you have evidence that attorneys and contractors have been targeted for their decision to enforce the law, the German war crimes prosecutor would like to now about your evidence. If you have information about attorneys being targeted if they agree not to enforce the law against the President and GOP, that is of interests.

___ How is the CIA gathered information being used to dissuade opposition against the President in the legal forums?

* * *


The burden is on the President.

Openly Confront the President for his illegal assertion of non-delegated powers.

___ Why should this President’s assertion of power be recognized?

___ How can the President assert a phony power which belongs to Congress?

Only if We the People agree to let the Constitution decay. Questions for Congress:

___ Why are you letting this Constitution spiral down?

___ Why is the Legislature not challenging the President’s assertion of non-delegated, legislative power?

* * *

The threat of war with enough propaganda muddles people’s thinking. Orwell talked about this in 1984: Double think.


The absurdity of the President’s arguments related to power must be disclosed, openly discussed, and aggressively challenged. The perverse thinking and logic should be showcased in the content of Article II non-delegated powers.

The cures to this problem is to deny the President the option to assert phony power; and remind him that we understand it is most likely this assertion of power is related to other criminal activity. We do not have the burden to gather evidence when the larger abuse of power is well understood within the GOP.

Sate proclamations calling for impeachment should be encouraged.

Ensure, enough members of Congress see the President’s power is illusory, based on illegal assertions of non-delegated. This does not mean focusing only on 17 GOP Senators for removal; but to engage directly with the GOP and DNC Leadership: They need to face this issue, or we’re going to find new leadership after they have been lawfully prosecuted and removed from office in 2007. We the People do not have to wait until the 2008 Presidential election; Members of Congress who refuse to wake up could be indicted by Grand Juries. There is nothing the President can do to tame a grand jury, especially when the Grand Jury understands the problem: The US Attorney connected with that Grand Jury is under pressure to do things which the Grand Jury could lawfully target the prosecutor for illegally doing – attempting to dissuade the Grand Jury from making conclusions of law or bringing indictments against the President and Members of Congress, as they are allowed to do without warning or coordination with the US Attorney Assigned.

* * *

National Policy on Presidential Powerlessness

We the People will only recognize one [1] power of the President: Executive. All other assertions of power are presumed to be criminal activity, not enforceable,. No one can compel anyone to assent to illegal assertions of power – this is criminal.

The President has one [ 1 ] power: Executive. HE is an administrator of the laws, noting more. When we the people refuse to recognize phony power, it is not a rebellion, but a recognition of the powerlessness of the President: He has not been delegated the power he is using, abusing, and relying on to do illegal things.

All Presidential powers, except Executive, is phony. The President’s authority is only a function of criminal activity. He is violating the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Status.

Until the President relies on the law on a narrow requirement, we have no reason to believe his assertion of power is real or connected with the Constitution.

Notice the contrast:

A. The President cannot handle simple planning requirements for war – something within his lawful delegation under the Constitution;

B. But when it comes to phony power, suddenly the President claims to be more of an expert than both Congress and the Judiciary.

The President’s asserted competence is illusory. Just as he’s bungled simple things, he cannot credibly ask anyone to believe he4 can better do the job of the Legislature or Judiciary.

In practice, the President’s power, as Addington asserts them, are phony, and the President is unable to that. The President can’t read Article II – it only delegates him one power – a man with a reading problem can’t manage an office; no wonder he can’t manage a war. He wants to use resources which do not exist, relying on powers which have not been delegated. A phony victory for a phony President.

* * *

Executive As An Internal Rebel

The President is leading an illegal rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution. He has illegally crated new powers he has not been delegated.

Opposing factions may lawfully reciprocate by refusing to assent to these phony powers.

Anything the President has illegally intruded upon may be introduced into evidence. Where he does not cooperate, adverse inferences can be made. All logic flaws in the signing statements, and assertions of non-delegated powers are evidence of interest to war crimes prosecutors.

It is an error to attempt to clash the rogue President using reciprocal non-sense. IT is correct to demonstrate the President’s power is phony, illusory, and disconnected from the law and Constitution.

The President’s illegal activity , as shrouded under phony powers, is the legal basis for We the People to lawfully clash, as a faction, against the President. The President has no power to defy the law, but has asserted phony power to continue illegal activity.

We the People may lawfully refuse to recognize phony power; when the Senate assents to phony power, We the People do not have to assent to the Senate. The President’s unreasonable arguments behind the phony power are legally defective, and evidence of his incompetence.

* * *

Congress has no legal power or requirement to assent to non-real power. We the People do not have to recognize phony power. We’re not ignoring the law; but refusing to recognize illusory power.

Congress has no power to assent to illusory power; nor assent to criminal conduct disguised as a new Power.

The President’s goal is to pretend that it is in the interests of the House not to assert power. A Constitutional Confrontation, fully comprehended by Congress, is needed to rebuke the non-sense the President created to craft a phony power. The new power is criminal activity.

The President has claimed non-asserted powers as his own. The President cannot rely on the Federalist Papers when the guiding language is the first sentence of Article II: One power, not many as in Article I. Congress is only a threat as long as Congress refuses to challenge the Presidential threat.

The President is denied the power to assert a non-delegated power exists; and he is prohibited from pretending that his refusal to do something that he might is a new power. It is part of the same power: Executive. Choosing to do nothing, or not fully enforce the law is not a Presidential power, but discretion; it is lawful only where it is allowed. The President may not argue he can do nothing when he must; or when he has agreed to fully assert his oath to protect what he ignores. Creating phony powers does not preserve the Constitution, but asks that we assent to non-delegated powers. This is not lawful, and we see the results: Recklessness.

* * *

Gonzalez has done no better than Addington. Where the President creates new phony Power where there is none, We the People may reciprocate: A recognize the power of We the People to imagine new powers.

The President has asserted power well beyond his original delegation, and created convoluted powers. Power includes the option to do nothing; doing nothing is not a new power. Where there is discretion that is a choice, not a new power.

Gonzalez error was to assert that non-permitted discretion was a new power. It is not lawful to assert illegal activity is permissible when the Congress did not intend, and expressly forbids what the President has done. It does not matter of the Congress communicates a legal requirement through treaty, statute, or other thing: The Congress in approving a treaty has outlined for the President what is required, not what can be ignored.

Gonzalez is lying and incorrect when he says FISA permits discretion. Gonzalez has exceeded the permissible timelines. When he agreed to violate the law, Gonzalez pretended this was a new power. It is the job of Gonzalez to find this power in the Constitution. It does not exist. Gonzalez is relying on circular reasoning, starting with illegal activity to create w new power which are not lawfully delegated, nor connected with the Constitution.

* * *

The error is to rename criminal activity and malfeasance as a power. The US Attorney’s manual, statutes, signing statements, and treaties are written things which must be contrasted with the Constitution: Has the Congress fully asserted its oath to ensure the President only asserted his sole Executive power; or have they remained silent, contrary to their oath’s requirements, refusing to challenge the President’s assertion of legislative and judicial power.

Closely examine the FY06 Intelligence Bill language. Applying Gonzalez’ thinking, it is possible to compare the statues and imagine the range of abuses and illegal activity the President and others have devised. They call it power, it is an excuse to abuse power. All statutes, bills, and written things have been similarly gutted on matters related to FISA, rendition, and Geneva.

Gonzalez and Addington have pretended that inaction satisfies the notification requirements; and created exceptions to the legal compliance requirements, pretending this is a new power. The President, Gonzalez, and Addington are in rebellion.

* * *

The way forward is to examine the President’s assertion of power and encourage all people to ask:

___ Which power may be ignored for which reasons.

Where the President asserts power, the way forward is to find the reason showing the Power is illusory and cannot be relied upon as a source of his authority. Contrary to Addington’s fantasy, the President has only one power: Executive; no other argument about any other power is legal or connected to the Constitution.

We the People may employ all excuses to craft this phony power as the legal to ignore this phony power, refuse to assent to it, and rebuke the President and his enablers for relying on this false power.

It is an error in a clash of factions to clash phony power with other powers similarly resting on an illusory foundation. Anything the President has asserted that is not his, is something for We the People to remind Congress: This is yours for now, but if you refuse to assert it, We the People may strip it from you and delegate it to a New Branch, beyond the Congress, Judiciary, and Executive.

The President’s signing statements must be entered into evidence. His language is evidence of his assertion of non-delegated powers which are not protected by Executive Privilege. His signing statements are evidence of his propaganda, fanciful themes, and illegal assumptions. His comments amount to legally worthless declarations. The way forward is to show the President’s assertion of non-delegated power is phony and the phony power is as mask for criminals.

* * *

Iran is a distraction, not a real threat. America’s president points to Iran because he needs a phony enemy to justify his phony power. This criminal activity is not connected with the Constitution.

If Iran is a threat, why was it not invaded first? The answer is as with WMD, there is no evidence justifying invasion of either Iraq or Iran. There is no connection between the President’s activity and the Constitution. The same blunders of Iraq and Katrina rely on phony power and excuses. We don’t need more evidence. We the People need Congress to awaken what is phony; otherwise the Senate cannot rest assured it will survive. It will either be lawfully transformed through a New Constitution; or lawfully destroyed by foreign fighters checking phony power with phony respect for phony leaders on the battlefield.

* * *

DNC requests for inputs to the agenda items are curious. They appear disingenuous. They asked for inputs of what to do: The November 2006 election was simple – give us change, not more excuses to assent to phony power.

Americans do not need to put together a new agenda. We have one. It’s the Constitution. Members of Congress have not read it. They believe Article II refers to plural power.

More legislative agendas means more excuses to distract attention from the President’s non-sense.

Why is anyone bother to ask for inputs when they not taking care to listen to the original input they took an oath to protect, preserve, and maintain in a superior state: The Constitution.

* * *

If you want to read more, review the Federalist 69, 44, and 84. You will see a comparison between what the President does not have; with what the President is expressly denied.

We do not have a King. This Congress pretends we have a Republic, while it recognizes phony powers of a phony King.

Foreign fighters find King George amusing because he is stupid, like many Americans who refuse to see that he is asserting non-delegated powers, and pretending they were his own. He has one power: Executive. All other things are illusory.

This President’s signing statements should be reviewed in the context of admissible statements, inadvertent disclosures, and denying the President Executive privilege on issues unrelated to Executive Power.

We would hope that the comments above are accepted with the spirit that they are intended: American needs a wake up call. It would be helpful if this wake up were in the form of a peaceful awakening, not another 9-11 which propels the Nation to justify more abuse and distractions.