Constant's pations

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

Saturday, February 10, 2007

States Have Lawful Power To End Member of Congress Rebellion Against Rule of Law

Iran: Congress Refuses to Contain the Abuse of Power; Congress Unwilling To Prevent States Prosecuting All 535 Members of Congress For Illegal Rebellion, War Crimes, and Unlawful Assent to Geneva Violations

Ref Curious how the legal community has this backwards, and is asking the wrong question. Preparations Well Underway For Expanding Illegal War: Where's Congress?

Congress is part of the problem. The issue is not what Congress can or cannot do, but what Congress plans to do as the States lawfully raise a militia to seize, capture, detain, and prosecute all 535 Members of Congress for their illegal rebellion against the US Constitution and laws of war.

Congress refuses to prevent the President from waging illegal warfare. The Congress can hardly be believed it might prevent 50 states from lawfully opposing the President and directly engaging him on the battlefield.

Where Congress has a duty to act but refuses, the States should move under the Constitution which allows them to immediately form an alliance with foreign powers, request humanitarian intervention, and lawfully bring to justice all 535 Members of Congress and leadership in the Executive Branch for their illegal rebellion against the Constitution.

It’s time for the States to openly challenge the rebels in the US government. This government will not stop the President. There is no hope they’ll stop all fifty states forming an alliance or enacting a New Constitution. Time to call this Congress and their reckless decision to do nothing on the carpet: If you won’t challenge the President, try to stop us from forming an alliance to end your illegal rebellion.

Congress is too lazy, and stupid to wake up to reality. Force this Congress to swallow a New Constitution by the hand of the States and We the People.

* * *

Congress can't argue it is limited in stopping the President waging illegal war. The founders (incorrectly) presumed the President would be controlled by Congress.
In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people?Fed74

Where there is no control, there is no management of abuse. Either Congress manages the Executive, or this Congress -- by default -- accepts it is no longer legitimate and it shall cease to exist.

We the People shall lawfully replace it with a New Constitution. The American people are gong to have to decide whether it wants to watch this Congress play stupid and not prevent an expanded illegal war; or whether you're willing to support a New Constitution which will remove from Congress the discretion to assent to illegal warfare.

* * *

The Constitution only delegates the power to Congress to declare war. Once Congress and the President take the time to not debate an issue, there is no reasonable basis to argue that a threat is imminent; or that urgency is required.

Rather than ask whether Congress has the power to stop the President, the real question is: Does the President dare expand illegal warfare despite no legal foundation?

* * *

This Congress is inept. Its staff counsel is reckless. It chooses to debate issues as if they are debatable, yet the core issue is war crimes.

We need not consider Congress a serious entity, especially when they refuse to end what is illegal, but pretend they have no power to stop what We the People never authorized the President to do.

This President has no power to wage illegal war; nor expand illegal war.

* * *

It doesn’t' matter whether the President is or is not bluffing on Iran, the issue is whether despite the non-imminent threat, Congress can credibly defend itself against war crimes indictments. It cannot.

This President, on his own, is not on the road to war: he's enabled by the toads in the Congress, and the refusal of the American legal community to end what is not lawful.

Congress can spend all day arguing over the law; the correct approach is to launch this into the Judicial branch, let them show they are unwilling to stop illegal war, then mock the leadership when they whine that foreign fighters are lawfully opposing illegal warfare.

* * *

This Congress -- all 535 of them -- have had plenty of time to mess around with these war crimes, and they have collectively refused to do what would put the debate on the issue: Impeachment would force a debate, and silence the Senate.

All that's required is one Member of Congress to accuse the President of a crime. They are silent.

* * *

America has a government in name only. It's on an escalator, unwilling to assent to the laws of war, and despite the disaster of Iraq, has nothing to show for any credible lessons or adjustments.

What Congress might do or should do is a parlor game. Until there is an impeachment, its' reasonable to conclude the US Members of Congress are complicit with the war crimes.

* * *

It's absurd that the legal community is acting like Congress can't do anything to "stop" the President. The issue should be turned on its head: Why should the President have any confidence he will not be lawfully removed from office, especially on top of the illegal, aggressive war he's waging?

America's failure is its refusal to put the law before political loyalties. It's not credible for America to wage war in the name of principles it will not practice.

War does not require Congress to block anything [question of action]; it requires the President to act, and a Congress to not stop him [passive]. This is a breakdown of the US system which the frames assumed would be an active clash of factions.

* * *

Rather than debate what Congress should do, it may be more appropriate to examine what incentive Members of Congress individually have to not assert their oath; and assent to illegal warfare. The answer doesn't matter -- it's illegal.

We the People should move to conclude the US government is illegitimate, create a new system, and lawfully transform the oversight process from this illegal rebellion to something that resembles a legitimate government.

* * *

Key Points

When Congress has power and duty to end illegal things, but refuses, it is not a separate branch of government, but is part of the illegal rebellion against the US Constitution and Geneva. Individual Members of Congress may be legally targeted by the State Attorney Generals for prosecution.

Where the Congress refuses to control the President, as is required when there is illegal warfare, Congress has assented to unlawful violations of the Constitution, and has failed to meet the requirements of 5 USC 3331. Please ask your friends to contact your state attorney generals to prosecute all 535 Members of Congress for refusing to end illegal warfare.

- -

There is no crisis mandating fast action, urgency, or dispatch. Congress has the time to review the legal issues. The fact that Congress is refusing to review the matter is not evidence of a crisis, but the refusal of the new leadership to assert the power they have been delegated to end illegal warfare.

The President does not have the excuse of a crisis, but the opposite: He's using illegal warfare, and his reckless management of the finite resources only Congress can provide, as the excuse to avoid oversight of his illegal warfare and mismanagement.

We the People are not required to remain loyal to, recognize, or assent to a government that impressibly allows the Constitution to fall into disrepair.

- -

Choosing not to assert power -- when it is required -- to prevent war crimes, is evidence of complicity with the original war crime. Congress fails to comprehend that when it choose inaction on Presidential oversight, it remains complicit with the illegal Geneva violations.

It doesn't matter whether any attorney says Congress should or should not do something. The question comes down to whether Members of Congress, despite the legal excuses, are or are not going to defend the Constitution. They choose to defy their oath, and violate the law. They are criminals and may be treated by foreign fighters according to the Geneva Conventions: Unlawful combatants, legitimate military targets, and engaged in illegal rebellion against the Constitution.

- -

Perceived awards linked with combat are meaningless when those laurels rest on the brow of war criminals.

Suggesting the combat should be assented to would ask that illegal warfare of the Nazis, because they provided medals to the ground troops, should immunize the leadership. This is incorrect.

What did or didn't happen between 1776 and 2006 is of little relevance when Geneva is compared to what must happen in 2007: End illegal warfare.

There is authority for Congress to end illegal warfare. If they choose not to assert it, regardless the reasons, then they are complicit with the illegal warfare.

The President has no power to declare war, nor claim there is a crisis abroad when the crisis is his defiance of the Constitution. National security is a meaningless term to wave when the President's illegal, expanding war crimes jeopardize the nation's Constitution, not to mention security.

* * *

We the People may lawfully ignore this Constitution and replace it with a new one. It is absurd for the President to compel Congress to only lawfully constrain the President, when the President ignores all legal and illegal methods to constrain him. He is a rogue.

The President has no power to point to other nation's lawful opposition to his war crimes to argue he needs more power to expand illegal warfare. Whether the statue does or does not exist to constrain the President on Iran is meaningless: This President with the 110th Congress complicity is unconstrained by law on illegal surveillance. In the abstract, what Congress might have done when DNC was arguing about their lack f power is irrelevant: They have the power, and refuse to impeach. They are therefore complicit with the known illegal activity. All 535 of them. Let's find a New Constitution and get a new crew that is willing to do what they took an oath to do: Assert the rule of law, not assent to smokescreens.

It doesn't make sense to pass laws constraining when the Senate is not serious about enforcing the laws which exist in FISA. The Senate is deemed to be in unlawful rebellion and part of the threat to the Constitution. Please encourage your friends to start immediately treating Members of Congress as the role they have chosen: Unlawful enemy combatants in rebellion against their oath. We need to establish a new government that will lawfully adjudicate these war crimes against all 535 Members of Congress.

* * *

There is no legal basis to expand illegal warfare from Iraq into Iran. It is meaningless to talk about what the AUMF for Iraq did or didn't do: It was based on fraud, and the warfare remains illegal. Japan's war of aggression was not legitimized the moment the US responded to the Pearl Harbor attacks. Iran rightfully views its opposition to the American's illegal warfare as no different than the US response to 9-11 or Pearl Harbor -- fully justified.

Whether the President assented to Congressional statutes is not debatable: He refuses to assent to the law, but Congress does nothing. It is irrelevant whether Congress passes new laws.

Congressional power is through acts. When Congress refuses to enforce those acts, Members of Congress are individually complicit will violations of their oath, not asserting power, and refusing to challenge illegal conduct. This is a subsequent war crime which all 535 Members of Congress in the 110th Congress in 2007 need to be prosecuted for. If Americans will not adjudicate these issues, foreign fighters may legally invade, capture, detain, and prosecute any of the 535 Members of Congress.

It doesn't matter, with this Congress, what they enact into language or laws. The laws, as this President views them, are discretionary. The error is for Congress to believe this lack of enforcement is debatable. It is not. It is a violation of the Constitution, contrary to the guarantee to the states, and inconsistent with the laws of war. These are war crimes attached to all 535 members of Congress in the 110th Congress in 2007.

- -

Contrary to the fiction of Brad Berenson, no government [paraphrasing] "shares the power" to wage illegal warfare. That power does not exist.

Also, the President does not have any multiple powers: He has only one power -- Executive. The Constitution no where in Article II mentions power in the plural sense.

It is the burden of the President to show the illegal activity in Iraq is not expanding into Iran. Whether most presidents have or have not done something is not relevant to this President. Whether there are or are not constitutional violations, this Congress does nothing. Stop messing around with asking whether Congress is or isn't going to do something. They are not. Treat them as the rebels they are -- criminals.

The public cannot be compelled to support what is illegal. It doesn't matter what non-sense the President and Congress agree. Illegal warfare is not debatable as a hypothetical in either the Legislative or Executive Branches, but a criminal matter before the courts.

This President defines anything -- including illegal warfare -- as something that Congress cannot stop. The President has no power to wage illegal warfare; and Congress was not given the power to assent to illegal warfare.

The Constitution only delegates to the Congress, not the President, the sole power to wage war. When Congress debates an issue, regardless the conclusion of that debate, there is no case to be made that the matter is urgent; or that the President has no time. Congress has time to debate whether to enforce the law; there is no basis to argue with Iran that there is an imminent threat. There is, to the contrary, an inconvenient requirement which this President refuses to recognize: The laws of war prohibiting illegal warfare, and combat where there is no imminent threat. The actual threat is in the Oval Office and in Capital Hill sending a clear signal: The States may legally seek assistance from foreign powers to lawfully remove by force the illegal leadership which defies the laws of war.

The States are lawfully permitted to form an alliance which will allow them to lawfully engage in combat operations against the war criminals in the US Congress and the Executive Branch. Congressional silence in the wake of US government war crimes is an imminent threat permitting the States to immediately raise a militia, organize themselves to wage lawful war against the rebels inside the US government, and use all legal and military options available to end the spreading war crimes by this US government, the 535 Members of Congress, and the Joint Staff.

If Congress doesn't end this illegal warfare, the States may legally work with foreign powers to lawfully subdue, and end the spreading Congressional rebellion against the Rule of Law and US Constitution.