End of Self-governance for US Government and American Legal Community

Those who point to the idea of self-governance, but defy their oath are not fit to be called self-governing. They are rebels.

The US Attorney firings is not a problem, it is a symptom, like Iraq, of an illegal rebellion by the US government and American legal community against the rule of law.

The US government and American legal community have betrayed We the People. The way forward is for We the People to work with our State officials to compel the US government to fully assert their oath and protect this Constitution.

The error is to focus on the US Attorney firings; and not look at the larger issues this President and others hoped to accomplish: Fire US Attorneys to support an appointment process which defied the US Constitution.

The US Attorney firings isn’t' about politics. It's about an illegal change to the US Constitution which this US government and legal community have not effectively challenged. We the People are in a position to make adverse inferences.

They way forward is to remind the US Government and American legal community their days of self-governing are over. We the People have awoken. The need for new oversight by We the People of the US government and American legal community is self-evident.

The issue is whether this US government and legal community will reform faster than We the People have the power to compel. They have no hope. Business as usual is over. Those who betray We the People shall be eternally reminded of their recklessness and compelled do prove they are fully complying with their oath. We the People do not have a burden to prove they are guilty; leadership must demonstrate with actions that they are asserting their oath; otherwise they are subject to prosecution unrelated to any election.

* * *



In re the US Attorney firings, there is an unspoken standard the Congress and President are not directly confronting: The requirements in the US Constitution.

Analysis is flawed when the Congress and witnesses argue over what did or didn't happen.

The appropriate analysis is to start with the standard; then ask what did or didn't happen.

It is an error to look at the US Attorney firing in isolation, devoid of any larger perspective of how the actions relate to the oath of office of all government officials.

For the witnesses and DoJ Staff to publicly repeat the refrain, "They serve that the pleasure of the President" misses the point: No, the President and US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of We the People under the law.

It appears this President and DOJ Staff had larger designs with the US Attorney firings. This isn't about removing people; it's about sealing the deal on a larger unconstitutional act: That of consolidating Judicial and Legislative power under the President.

For the President to consolidate power, he had to get Congress to agree with that usurpation. This was the Member of Congress decision to unconstitutionally delegate that appointment and confirmation powers of the Senate to the Principals.

Someone let this happen; and someone did not stop it. Someone made decisions that were contrary to the Constitution. They are domestic enemies.

* * *

I respect Senator Leahy's judgment. However, on this point I will diverge. I'm not satisfied with the apparent assent to Goodling's decision not to testify. She doesn't have the right not to appear; she has a legal duty to cooperate as a government employee and attorney; she cannot claim a right as a private citizen after having allegedly been complicit as a government official in thwarting that document. If she wants to claim the right to not cooperate as a private citizen, then she should be impeached and denied the position she has in government. She can't have it both ways, especially after taking an oath to do what she apparently refuses: Enforce the law, and protect the Constitution. She's an attorney; how dare she judge others who are not lawyers through her positions on rendition, warrantless surveillance, and prisoner abuse. She chose to remain, and has not removed herself for the illegal activity; it's too late for her to remove herself from the cleanup. She is the mess. She is a government employee, not just a private citizen. Attached with Goodling's duties is the requirement to put the oath of office and US Constitution first.

Across the board, it appears Members of Congress, the DOJ Staff, and principals put their loyalty to partisan objectives before the Constitution. They don't have that choice. That is illegal.

For Sampson or anyone to suggest that the US Attorneys service at the pleasure of anyone misses the point: This President is in no position to assert that he can or cannot decide something which the Constitution does not leave him any power to decide.

There appears to be some strange deference to the President on issues which the President has no lawful authority to assert: He cannot violate the Constitution; nor put into effect any act of Congress that defies the Constitution.

* * *

It is a misreading of the events related to the US Attorney firings without looking at the larger issues attached to the people involved. Goodling was interfacing between the DOJ Staff and President and White House counsel.

Without any warning, Goodling announced that she had legal issues which, if she did testify to anything, would leave her in a perjury trap. For the moment, put aside the details of the violations she appears she feels she is vulnerable; focus on the concerns with the law in general.

It's too late. These questions of legality are not credibly excuses to not cooperate; they should have been discussed and resolved before the decision to act or not act. It is not acceptable for Congress to reward her initial failure to do what she should with assent to not do what she is not permitted to refuse: Cooperate with the rule of law.

* * *

It is irrelevant what the principals or President decided when that decision is contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution is not a document that disappears because the majority of Americans led by the President choose to defy it, not enforce it, or explain it away. Eventually, the rude awakening happens: There's been a course of conduct that is not credibly linked with, founded on, or supported by the Constitution.

* * *

The testimony is preliminary; the e-mails are still being analyzed. My concern is that this back and forth between Congress and the President is a smokescreen from the fundamental issues in the Constitution which would warrant impeachment.

It is flawed to argue that Congress is going to get to the bottom of anything when the natural consequences of that analysis -- that of impeachable offenses -- is off the table. The analysis shifts from why, in the absence of evidence of information, that a decision has been made not to keep all options on the table.

Inquiry must be expansive. There is nothing stopping the Senators from going to the well of the Senate and express their views on the Constitution, the President's defiance of it, or the efforts of Members of Congress and white House counsel to illegal abrogate it. The silence is noteworthy. I would prefer if the Senate have an open discussion on the Constitutional requirements, and raise the issues: What is to be done when the President and others use partisan excuses to violate the Constitution?

* * *

There are two relevant factors: The Constitution and oath which guide her conduct; and the evidence of what she did.

Whether Goodling is misguided, naive, or has another loyalty to something is meaningless. This is an administrative hearing in the open media. Goodling cannot treat the Congress as if it were a court. She can and should be impeached for her refusal to fully cooperate with the administrative inquiry – which this President has blocked – and falls to the Legislature to complete. It doesn’t matter who or what conducts an administrative hearing: Goodling has a duty to fully cooperate with that administrative hearing when the Congress conducts an administrative inquiry. This Congress has to do what the President refuses.


She's admitted that she has a legal issue but can't talk about it. Fine, then Congress need not debate any facts and impeach her: She has violated the law. How that violation occurred means little. Congress is not a court; evidence is not required; the Senate may choose to reward Goodling for her apparent defiance of her oath.

Goodling and others are not loyal to the President; they are loyal to the Constitution and their oath of office. Whether the President wants to reward or punish people on the basis of criteria that undermine the Constitution is meaningless unless the decision to impeach remains on the table. This President, the DOJ Staff, White House counsel, and Members of Congress have silently permitted the President's unconstitutional criteria be the new standard by which the President is judged.

No. The Constitution alone is the standard: Does the President activity meet or not meet the requirements in the Constitution. Congress has no power to create a rule permitting the President, DOJ Staff, or principals to decide anything else. These are not enforceable; and nobody can rely on the Congressional acts when they illegally delegate to the President powers reserved only to the Senate.

* * *

These are not issues for the Senate to debate, decide, or ponder. The decision is clear: The Senate shall be involved with the US Attorney appointment and nominations. The Senate alone decides who is or is not qualified; if the Senate does not recognize the President's decision, power, or criteria, the Senate alone may choose to force the President to try again. Until then, it is an error to delegate the senate refusal-decision to the Judiciary to resolve.

Fact finding is important so long as the basis for fact finding keeps the Constitution and oath of office where it should be: First, and well ahead of the President's view of what is important.

The US Attorneys must be managed in terms which permit them to succeed. This President and DOJ Staff have created two standards: One Judicial under the law; and a second political set of factors which put the law behind man. This is an error. The President has no authority to fire anyone for criteria, which enforced, undermine the Constitution; or put into effect plans and programs which thwart the Constitution.

* * *

It doesn't matter why the President, White House counsel, DOJ Staff, or GOP believe that putting the Constitution behind a political agenda is right or wrong. It is illegal, especially when the President and his staff have implemented unconstitutional acts which the Constitution does not permit.

The evidence, as it relates to political goals, is less important than the evidence as it relates to legal requirements under the Constitution:

___ What was the reason the President, despite his oath to the Constitution, put his loyalty to a process that illegally permitted the President and Attorney Generals to appoint US Attorneys despite the Constitutional requirement that the Senate appoint?

This question forces us to move away from whether the US Attorney firings were or were not lawful; to the larger issue: How did the firings fit in with the unconstitutional program to remove and replace US Attorneys outside the Constitution.

Sampson and Goodling cannot argue that their criteria for their actions was valid, when the Constitution and oath strictly prohibit what they have done or fear they have done: Illegally violate the Constitution, while implementing unlawful Presidential programs to institutionalize a new constitution without going through the Amendment process.

* * *

The issue is not what they are allowed to do, or what they believe they can do; but what the Constitution strictly prohibits them from doing: Denying We the People and the states the enforcement mechanism to ensure the rule of law and Constitution, not man, are the basis for civilized interactions.

At best, the DOJ Staff e-mails as they relate to concerns with public affair release indicate the DOJ leadership openly abused employees, publicly berating and chastising them despite apparent failures to clearly promulgate guidelines and procedures.

The issue with the US Attorney firings is not part of a management decision or an ideology that can be explained away or justified. It is illegal to implement any program that supports the President's desire to directly nominate and appoint anyone that the Constitution requires Senate involvement.

Arguments that decisions to fire or remove the US Attorneys for issue of "politics" and "the law" is a smokescreen from the horizontal analysis: Whether the program of firing and appointments did or did not violate the Constitution. It did. Starting from that position, the analysis is easy: All actions related to these illegal firings are part of a larger unconstitutional effort of the President and his staff to defy GOP control of the senate, and consolidate power under the Executive Branch.

Put aside the issue that we the people rejected this in 2006. The Constitution, not We the People, is what this President took an oath to defend. His job was to defend this Constitution, and the Senate role in confirmations, from all enemies, even the Principals, who were implementing an illegal appointment process.

The firings are only part of the larger activity: The other half of the equation is the replacement and appointment. The President could only continue with unconstitutional appointment if he removed the US Attorneys. It doesn’t matter whether they were fired, resigned, or were intimidated: The net result was the President failed to prevent the process from directly supporting unconstitutional appointments.

Under the holdover provision, when a US Attorney reaches their 4 year term limit, the US Attorney stays in place until their replacement is ready, appointed. However, when the US Attorney replacement has been illegally appointed without the Senate, the US Attorneys who are in the holdover position may not be legally removed.

we've heard conflicting accounts of why the US Attorneys were removed, replaced, resigned. These are irrelevant. The issue is not why they were no longer in office, but that the President refused to ensure the Constitution was protected; and he did not follow the legal requirements that the US attorneys in place continue to serve until their replacements were lawfully appointed. They never were.

* * *

The issue is not whether the US Attorneys were or were not fired for good or bad reasons. The issue is why the President, despite his oath, did not stop this discussion which he knew was supporting illegal appointments. The larger issue is not what the DOJ Staff and President were trying to do; but what they were failing to do: Fully assert their oath to preserve, protected, and defend the Constitution against the domestic enemies. It is secondary that those enemies were those they see in the mirror. It doesn't matter why; and it is irrelevant they don't have a convincing explanation. It is unconstitutional.

* * *

Indeed we need to explore what happened and what will be done to prevent it. However, the larger issue: How will convoluted analysis of a smokescreen help to put the Constitution first; and ensure there are timely decisions related to oversight.

Congress helped enable this President to usurp power on the appointment process. The issue isn't merely whether the US attorneys will or will not have a different oversight process; but what will change in Congress and the US Government to quickly reveal illegal efforts to support unconstitutional objectives.

To appoint a replacement illegally, someone has to be removed. That removal, regardless the reason, is presumed to be illegal when it supports an illegal process for the President to bypass the Senate. This decision to bypass the Senate was not linked with the GOP or DNC; but with the President's decision to ignore the Senate for eternity; and with the expectation this usurpation would never be challenged.

This is not about the US Attorneys. This about the US government jointly agreeing, through inaction or laziness -- to assent to illegal changes to the Constitution outside the Amendment process. These are serious matters. Only we the People can do that.

* * *

The issue is who we trust to protect the Constitution from the domestic enemies in the White House, Executive Branch, legal community, and Congress. This government has failed to preserve the Constitution. This government cannot be trusted to address an issue they have refused to confront: Their oath.

We the People have the power to compel a vote on the oath and force Members of Congress to show their hands. To date, they have attempted to thwart state efforts to force the issue of impeachment. Rather than take a stand on the oath and asset it, the DNC and GOP have jointly made excuses not to be held to account for their oath. This is what we voted for in November 2006 -- change on the back of the oath to the US Constitution, nothing less. All other excuses and explanations are irrelevant.

The issue before We the People is not the circus this President has attempted to hide, but the absurdity this US government has not timely managed and ended.

Why did this happen? Congress and the President jointly agreed to amend the Constitution without following the Constitutional requirements that apply only to government. We the People may lawfully reciprocate. It is on the table: Our power to draft a New Constitution which shall codify and lawfully punish timely those in Congress and the Executive Branch who ever attempt to do what they failed to do: Abrogate their oath, ignore the Constitution, and put the rule of man above their oath to the Supreme Law.

This issue is one for the GOP and DNC to wrestle. We the People must prepare for their failure and have backup options to ensure We the People direct the US government to do things which they, despite their oath, have refused.

* * *

This is on the table:

1. State Attorney general prosecutions of the President, DOJ Staff, Members of Congress, and outside counsel who have orchestrated efforts to deny the States of their right to an enforcement mechanism;

2. State level disbarment investigations of DOJ Staff, White House counsel, outside counsel, and Congressional staff counsel

3. State level grand juries that shall have the unrestricted power and authority to review any document to examine how these US government officials have thwarted your state's right to an enforcement mechanism

4. State level efforts to shut down the American Bar Association, find new legal leadership, and compel timely, open, public state audits of the American legal community to ensure they are not part of illegal efforts to abrogate the Constitution.

* * *

The US government has wasted too much time avoiding the legal issues. We've just had an election; and we will have another election. This is not news and irrelevant to whether the oath of office is enforceable by the states against US government officials.

When Goodling and Sampson with Gonzalez took their oaths of office, they did not take an oath to remain loyal to the GOP or President; they took their oath to protect this Constitution from the President. Those who say political goals trump the Constitution have made the right decision to resign. However, resignation does not end the examination of whether than defendant has or has not thwarted the enforcement mechanisms guaranteed to the States.

it is less important for Congress to find out what happened, than for Congress to confront the issue: What is getting in the way of Congress and the Executive Staff counsel from putting their oath of office before their loyalty to the President; and why despite legal requirements to report peer misconduct to authorities, have the legal community assented to unconstitutional conduct. IT doesn’t matter how that conduct is measured -- rendition, FISA, Geneva, war crimes, or NSA illegal activity. The issue is not the excuse for man to avoid accountability; but to understand what must be done to ensure all are subject to the Rule of law.

This US government has put itself above the law, and has not timely asserted its oath, nor worked with the states to do what needs to be done to protect the Constitution.

The Congress is arguing over whether they believe or do not understand the explanations and excuses for unconstitutional conduct. This is a waste. The issue is not the excuse, but the decision which this Congress has no power to avoid: The decision to have a Constitution that shall be fully supported.

It doesn't matter whether the US government officials thought it was a good idea; or that they were confused. They are attorneys. If the best this legal community can give We the People is "we're not sure why we violated the Constitution" then the way forward is to find new leadership for the legal community who will be sure before they give anyone access to the legal profession.

This is a leadership problem in Congress, the GOP, and the American legal community. We the People have seen enough to realize that the solution is going to be with the States who force the US government to choose between their loyalty to non-sense; or their loyalty to the Constitution through the oath.

If the US government does not timely formulate a plan to ensure this unconstitutional conduct -- not isolated to the US Attorney firings and illegal appointments -- is not actively thwarted, the answer is not to put up with "whatever they decide," but to remind them of what We the People have decided: Their oath to the Constitution is the standard by which their conduct is evaluated.

We the People have the power to evaluate this conduct not just at in an election, but through the Grand Jury process at the state level immediately.

* * *

While the US government "gets around" to muddling through their oath and the illegal activity, We the People need to move on a parallel effort to force all 535 Members of Congress, the President, legal community, and the White House-DOJ Staff counsels to understand what change means: It means putting the Constitution first; and removing oneself from unconstitutional conspiracies designed to undermine Our Will.

I would prefer:

A. Open debates in the town halls and state assemblies/legislatures on the issue of the oath of office and Constitution;

B. An open discussion of the problem this US government has with understanding their oath of office;

C. A discussion of the deadlines We the People need to impose on the Congress, President, and legal community to force them to focus not on the details of the excuses, but the standards in the Constitution

D. A review of what needs to be done to remind state-licensed attorneys to fully assert their oath, especially against their peers in the legal profession who have put their oath to man before oath to the Constitution;

E. A parallel investigation, outside Congress, by We the People, of the reforms needed in the American legal community oversight, screening, peer reviews, continuing legal education, and DOJ OPR oversight of DOJ Staff counsel.

* * *

Attorneys in the American legal profession need a wakeup call: They have been lazy, and have let this Constitution decay to an inferior state. They have betrayed their clients: We the People. They need to be reminded in no uncertain terms that they have given ample evidence they cannot credibly call themselves a self-regulating profession. They are a self-enabling group of criminals, who have collectively defied their oath, not fully asserted their oath, and refused to timely protected, preserve, and defend this Constitution. They are supposedly the brightest; yet, they have impermissibly refused to confront the illegal rebellion, leaving this job to We the People. Fine, then We the People, shall conduct oversight of the legal profession from now on. They have lost their right to claim or demand that they regulate their. When given the chance, they refused. They made an error. They do not get a second chance.

The punishments possible for the American legal profession, if linked with war crimes, as is the case here, includes the death penalty. Where the rule of law fails and the American legal experts walk like zombies, they well demonstrate they are not curable. Permitting them to live, especially after being adjudicated for war crimes, would ask that We the People give them what they have denied us: Respect.

* * *

For eternity all women and men shall be reminded of the so-called "special place" the American legal profession have. Their oath is to one thing; but they betray it daily. They are unfit to call themselves leaders. They are rebels and have defied their oath.

They chose poorly. We the People outnumber the US government, legal profession, and the individual DOJ and White House counsel who have defied their oath.

We've seen nothing to suggest they show contrition. These factors may be included in the remedy afforded under law; and what discussion is needed to move the country forward from this illegal rebellion against Our Will; or something that puts the rule of law above all, including the lazy legal profession that has shown contempt for their oath.

They betrayed us. There is no reason anyone should continue t listen to the mindless yapping of the poodles wandering the halls of the American Bar Association and US government urinating on themselves. They have time to chit chat about sports on their blackberries, but have "no time" to challenge their peers who openly defy their oath. We the People have the power to provide the needed leadership to the lazy American legal community and US Government. If they refuse, they shall wish that they had put their oath before their excuses.

Self-governance is over for the US government and American legal community. Their job is to outline how they shall assent to oversight by We the People now. The election result has failed to inspire in their souls a desire to do what they promise. They refuse. We the People have the power to compel them. Lawful prosecutions of this President and Vice President, Members of Congress, DoJ and White House counsel, and the American legal community are overdue. We the People have the power to draft a New Constitution to compel their assent to the rule of law, and timely impose lawful justice for any US government official or member of the American legal community to assent to another illegal rebellion against the rule of law.

They wished this.