New Constitution: Compelling Enforcement Of Law Despite Goverment Refusal
The more I review the proposed New Constitution, especially in light of what this GOP and Republican Party has done to destroy it, the more confident I am that the proposed solutions would send a clear signal: There remain lawful options to punish leaders who refuse to assert power; or who abuse power; or who interfere with law enforcement of Constitutional Statutes.
Usually, in the world of Alice and Wonderland and perpetual fascism, I might be inclined to believe that this might ba a solution: Ref If the President vetoes the benchmarks Congress sets, the President wont get any money.
But never fear, it remains to be seen how -- despite the Constitution -- the GOP plans to do an end run, and compel Members of Congress to assent to illegal activity; and otherwise undermine Murtha's plan to constrain power.
Here's what watch for:
___ How does the GOP turn a filibuster -- from something that blocks action -- into a threat that induces the DNC to support more war crimes?
___ What excuses will the GOP give -- in threatening a filibuster, that thing where they talk at length -- to remain silent about what they are doing?
___ What will the GOP attempt to do to make the public believe that the President's illegal activity is lawful; or that the DNC's refusal to fund that illegal activity is a threat to national security?
I'm struck by two interesting Kos diaries which partially shed light on the convoluted legal theory inside the White House. They are both related to the Attorney General: [ Habeas, Illegitimacy ]
He's been wandering the White House for years, and the American leadership has been asked to believe he's competent. It is amazing this type of illegal activity would last this long, and the worst that happens to him is he gets more power and a promotion.
___ How do people like this, allegedly complicity with war crimes, continue for this long in this powerful position, but not get removed from office, disbarred, or shown the door?
I have thought that, in conjunction with legislative power -- the simple act of passing or not passing a bill -- it would be nice if there were some teeth in the Congress to enforce the law, especially when the President refuses to do what he is told.
Although there is a separation of powers issue, the question becomes: What happens when the Congress and President jointly agree -- as the fascists in the GOP have done -- to not enforce the law:
___ What is a tool which will give members of Congress teeth to enforce the law which the President and Members of Congress refuse to enforce;
___ How is this tool managed so it is not abused; but is subject to court oversight;
___ To what extent can a minority party be permitted to issue subpoenas, with the superiviosn of the court, to compel enforcement of existing laws which the President, and Members of Congress are blocking?
Just because power is separated it doesn't mean that the lack of assertion of power by one will legally allow the non-asserted powers to be precedent. Someone or something needs to enforce the law.
___ What methods is allowed which will permit an average citizen to enforce the criminal and government law and Constitution through legal means;
___ What is to be done when the US Attorneys, inspectors, auditors, and Congressional oversight refuse.
The President and Congress have this power now; who are they to say that a third branch could not have the power to retaliate?
It is the lack of a credible threat of adverse consequences that has given Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, and the Vice President the incorrect belief that they can jointly expand illegal warfare, and destroy the Constitution.
We need to create something that works to respond not just to an abuse of power; but to the illegal assent to the abuse.
There is an answer: The Consulars, in the third chamber of the legislature; and with the Fourth Branch of Government -- the investigative arm with the lawful means to use deadly force and wage lawful combat against any of the other branches when they assent to war crimes, or refuse to end illegal warfare. [ Share this].
There will be three executives; and the Judicial Branch shall have the power to supervise the fourth branch when it wages lawful combat against Congress and the Executive Branches. It gives the judicial branch teeth; and permits the threat of consequences outside Congress to act.
Unlike the framers assumption that factions would clash, the new assumption is the opposite: Only the threat of combat and sustained combat losses is sufficient to inspire the US government to respond to the laws of war. The lesson of Bush and the GOP is that their defiance of Geneva and choice to wage illegal warfare means that for eternity they and their children shall forever face the prospect of having lawful military force being used to compel their assent to the Constitution.
Tyrants like Bush and the GOP fascists need to know that where factions assent to illegality, there shall be teeth which shall be carefully, lawfully and perpetually placed at their throat with the imminent threat of sustained combat losses and loss of power. Nothing else has timely worked to compel American tyranny to grovel at the feet of We the People, nor inspire them to fully assert their oath to protect the same. They have no plan.
They shall be lawfully compelled to embrace this solution; or forced to endure additional, lawful combat losses abroad by American enemies less interested in the law, and and more amused by the prospect of abusing American government officials without regard to any standard of conduct. If this Congress and President do not like it, they are advised to make this system work. It has failed and they have jointly assented to the Constitution's inferior state. They are free to go through the Amendment process; we the People, on the other hand, may at any time impose without warning a New Constitution. One will solve the problem; one may solve the problem.
Will or may -- there is a solution. Congress and the President need to choose. We the People are ready to lawfully impose what is a reasonable solution. Pelosi has until the end of next week to share her lessons and observations; meanwhile, the States are moving forwad with prosecutions, and the New Constitution stands as it is. How you liking that for House cleaning?
They wished this.
[ Present for you. ]