American Media Desperate For Alleged War Criminal Quotes
Reckless Media Relies on Alleged War Criminals
Ref I found an example that illustrates how government and the media joined forces to compromise our Constitution.
The President's legal options are narrowing: The NYT, the media outlet which was allegedly complicit with Iraq WMD frauds to Congress, is quoting alleged war criminals. Bird of a feather.
A reckless President requires micromanagement, especially when the Constitution permits only to Congress to define with precision how troops shall be used, supported, and whether they shall or shall not be funded. If this President doesn't like this Constitutional arrangement, he is free to resign.
The Constitution, not this President's arrogance and defiance of Congress, shall have precedence. If this President ignores this Constitution, We the People may immediately impose a New Constitution which divides Executive Power into new centers of power; and strips the Members of Congress and President of delegated powers hey have not asserted, have abused, or they have illegally usurped.
We the People can enact this New Constitution in short order in the coming weeks, if needed. Faster than the President can object.
The President has no power to compel Congress to support something it chooses not to support. Ref (UNITED STATES v. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) : Power not entrusted, when illegally asserted, invalidates the action as unconstitutional.)
Ref Constant's blogging of the Senate Judiciary Hearing: "EXERCISING CONGRESS’S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO END A WAR".
Ref Dellinger cited below in WaPo Article, appeared before the Committee.
Ref 449 US 200: Having independent branches of government does not mean that the branches will not clash when there is disagreement, especialy on issues which Congress alone decides: Whether to permit the President to continue with illegal, reckless warfare.
Ref Presaident has no power to ignore Congress; he must go to court to have the illegal act of Congress struck down. Until the court finds the act is unconstitutional, it remains the supreme law for the President to enforce. An illegal act of Cognress does nto give the President the power to unilateraally act; rather, someone who has been damaged by this illegal act has the power to challenge the act in Congress. Until the Act has been challenged, the Act is in full force. This President has not gone to court because, it appears, he does not believe the court would agree that the Act of Congress is illegal. However, refusing to assent to a court for review on its constitutionality is the same as understanding that the Act of Cognress is lawful and the President shall obey the act. Whether the President agrees or disagrees with this construction is irrelevant, especially after the President has signed the act into law; or the Congress has overridden the President's objections and Enacted the Bill into law without the President's agreement.
This one's an interesting one:
David B. Rivkin Jr., a White House lawyer in the George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations, described the proposed congressional restrictions as the "epitome of micromanagement." He said he thinks "the White House will end up fighting the congressional micromanagement and, if it continues, will publicly articulate the view that it is unconstitutional and not binding on the executive." Ref
Let's play civics lesson:
1. Only Congress has the power to raise and support an Army. The President has one power -- Executive -- and must manage the finite resources which only Congress may provide.
2. When the President illegally uses forces, Congress is not required to provide support which is illegal.
3. When the President mismanages the finite resources that is malfeasance.
4. The President, contrary to advisers, chose to illegal do something with insufficient forces. That is not a problem of Congress; but one where the President started seething with resources he knew Congress was not supporting.
5. This Congress, under RNC control, was never mobilized to have a draft; or do something different. This President, with a GOP Congress, botched the operations in Iraq.
Revisiting this: The President might as well be arguing that the Constitution, from which he derives his power, is not legal; therefore, if the President ignores the Constitution, he has no basis to assert unlawful, non-delegated powers.
He said he thinks "the White House will end up fighting the congressional micromanagement and, if it continues, will publicly articulate the view that it is unconstitutional and not binding on the executive." Ref
Congress alone has the exclusive power to make rules, and define how it shall raise or support an army. Where Congress decides not to support an army, the President may not deploy or use in combat something that does not exist.
If the President ignores the Congress, and illegally uses forces without appropriations made be law, he shall be in violation of the Constitution. If the President says that Acts of Congress are not binding on him, then he shall be deemed to have violated the Supreme Law and unlawfully used combat troops for illegal purposes. These are war crimes. Foreign fighters, until the President assent to the law, may legally wage lawful warfare against the President; and lawfully punish him with broadened combat operations, to which the Congress is not required to provide any support.
The President has no power to wage illegal war; and may not attempt missions where there exist insufficient resources.
The burden is not on Congress to create something which does not exist -- weapons, armor, troops -- but for the President himself to be appropriately managed as a clerk: This President must be micromanaged, because the alternative gives him discretion to create more disasters. Congress, when it makes rules, is not required to enable a President to wage illegal war, or imprudently use finite resources.
The President can only claim he has power which has been delegated. The President may not self-delegate himself the power to ignore Congress; nor the power to void an act of Congress. This is not a lawful assertion of power.
Combat is not a higher loyalty than the Constitution, especially when the Constitution must be impermissibly ignored to continue what Congress objects: Illegally, reckless combat in Iraq.
It is Constitutional for the Congress to define, with precision, how much money it will or will not provide; the President has no legal power to assert a decision of Congress -- which Congress alone may make -- is or is not Constitutional. Only a court may review that legal opinion; the President has no power to assert an Act of Congress is or is not Constitutional.
The President does not have judicial power to define something as unconditional; nor may the President assert that a finite constraint of funding is illegal. All Acts of Congress are the law of the land. They are binding. Contrary to the President's imagination, the Congress alone has the power to define what is or is not binding on the President.
If we lived in an ideal world, there would be no need for government; if we had saints as leaders, there would be no need for a separation of power; and if we had competent people as leaders, we would not have a need for oversight.
This President may not legally say that legal restrictions and needed definition is unconstitutional; rather, it is this President’s reckless disregard for the law and finite constraints that has created this mess.
This President's advisers discussed the problems, this President ignored them; this President’s freely chose to expand illegal warfare, despite combat losses.
If the President chooses to ignore Congress, then We the People are free to ignore the President. We the People may legally implement a New Constitution, substantially, lawfully destroying this President's political and legal power, and transform his position into something new that is:
___ Engages within the constraints and resources he has been given
This President, despite GOP Control of Congress, did not work with Congress to start a draft, raise new troops, or expand the warfare with new resources. He's sat around, attempted to pretend he was a leader, but bugled.
It's not credible for this President, this late in the game, to say that the law is unconstitutional; no, that assertion is absurd.
One thing I like is when a "big opinion" that is ground breaking, has no credibility.
Let's consider this quote:
In 1996, then-Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III wrote a memo stating that congressional language prohibiting the president from placing U.S. forces under United Nations control during peacekeeping operations "would unconstitutionally constrain the President's exercise of his authority as commander-in-chief." Ref
Consider its' limited use: [ five mentions ]
The administration declined to make available lawyers to discuss the constitutional issues surrounding the war debate, saying it does not want to discuss hypotheticals, but a Justice Department spokesman pointed to a number of opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel suggesting clear limits on congressional power. Ref
Translation: It's meaningless.
NYT fails to mention that there are only five mentions -- total -- on the Internet, and the quote doesn't appear to have many legs.
___ Is this the DoJ Staff counsel can do?
___ Is there nothing in the public domain that will "better support" the President's position?
___ Is DoJ saying that, even
There's a problem, as usual with the DoJ assertion. The President was not telling Congress; he was requesting Congress do something. Let's get specific with what the DoJ is lying about.
DoJ Took Quote out of Context
Let's consider when similar language was used, but in the context of the Executive assenting to Congressional language. Note here, the Executive is requesting Congress do something, not, as is the case with Bush, a threat to ignore Congress:
The Administration urges the Senate to strike two provisions that raise serious Constitutional concerns, sections 406 and 408. Section 406 would condition the use of funds for diplomatic relations with Vietnam on Presidential certification that Vietnam has satisfied specific conditions contained in this section. This unworkable requirement would unconstitutionally constrain the President's exercise of his power to recognize foreign governments.Ref
The precedent is simple: The Executive must get language from Congress; and even if the President disagrees with that language, if Congress passes a law, the President shall comply. There is no discretion.
Former White House counsel has no credibility when it talks about precedent in terms of "constraints". That Executive request and opinion is not absolute, enforceable, or relevant: Only Congress has the power to make rules; the President has no power to ignore rules.
Tell the White House counsel's office to screw off; and tell the DoJ Staff to pull their head out of their rear end: These are issues leading to allegations of war crimes, illegal DoJ Staff counsel memorandum. Foreign fighters are going to pay as much attention to the President's request to stop warfare, as the President pays attention to the Congress.
___ Where the President ignores the Congress, foreign fighters shall ignore the President’s please for an end to combat;
___ Where the President says Congress is doing it cannot -- which it can -- foreign fighters shall remind the President he cannot do something: Prevail in illegal warfare against free people.
If the President and the White House counsel's office want to play a game of pretending the law and Congressional Acts do not apply -- which they do -- foreign fighters hall make the President’s problem that much more difficult: More examples that combat losses are relevant, do apply, and are related to one thing: This President' reckless disregard for reality.
Brad Berenson, allegedly knowledgeable of illegal transfer of prisoners to Syria while working in the White House, has no plan.
As Dellinger suggested, there is little question among most scholars that Congress has ample constitutional authority to shut down the war. "I am not aware of a serious dispute over whether it is constitutional for Congress to defund or otherwise terminate the war in Iraq," said Brad Berenson, who was in the White House counsel's office from 2001 to 2003. "The big debate is over whether it is wise." Ref
Wow, Brad -- big scary things might happen if the Congress chooses to end illegal warfare? Maybe you can be specific with what you are saying.
There is no debate over the wisdom of ending illegal warfare. The question is to what extent German or Italian war crimes prosecutors are or are not given fully support at the alleged Abraxas-liked entities and personnel are or are not fully targeted for war crimes; or whether we expand the prosecutions t include DoJ and White House counsel who have allegedly drafted illegal memorandum assenting to war crimes.
As to claims by alleged war criminal Yoo, under indictment by the German war crimes prosecutor for war crimes:
Indeed, some Republicans seem to be baiting the Democrats to try to defund the war. John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who became well known for his expansive assertions of presidential authority, co-wrote a piece in the New York Times this week suggesting Congress has all the power it wants to stop the war but is engaging in "bluster" with nonbinding resolutions. Ref
If Yoo wants something more than "bluster," he should go look at the status of his disbarment investigation in Pennsylvania.
Source of Quotes
Michael Abramowitz. Bush, Congress Could Face Confrontation on Issue of War Powers: President's Allies See Possible Challenges in Proposals Placing Restrictions on Funding for Iraq. Washington Post. Friday, February 16, 2007; A05