Members of Congress Complicit With Illegal Change to US Constitution Outside Required Amendment Process

The issue is not the US Attorney firings, which is a symptom, but Members of Congress rubber stamped an unconstitutional change to the Constitution outside the Amendment process; yet, the American legal community planned to fully implement this unconstitutional provision.

The e-mails show the President, Gonzalez, and White House counsel agreed to circumvent the Constitution; and that this plan was coordinated at all levels. There is no reason for the House Judiciary to feel constrained to only accept interview comments in private: The available open record proves the President, AG, and White House counsel are complicit with this illegal activity. No other testimony is needed. It's all in the e-mails. [ House Judiciary Chairman has proposed, and accepted an illegal agreement to keep evidence of illegal activity and war crimes suppressed. ]

This conduct violates the Attorney Standards of conduct and brings discredit upon the Congress. Liability attaches to Members of Congress, GOP leadership, and the American legal community. These are more than ethics issues for attorneys and Members of Congress; they are issues of criminal law. Someone illegally put into effect, and did not stop, illegal plans. The GOP and American legal community in Congress have no solution.

We the People have the option to immediately implement a New Constitution, outside the Amendment process, which shall impose a solution on this US Government.

Solution: There needs to be a method where there is a guarantee the Members of Congress have read the bill; and there is a certification that there are no unconstitutional provisions in the bill before it is debated.

Without a certification in writing, there should be no basis to debate, much less vote on any legislation. This would be accomplished not with a rule, but with a New Constitution which would create a new body that separately must approve the bill is Constitutional before either the House or Senate reviewed the technical details.

- -

Sampson On Circumventing the Senate

Ref Specter raised the issue of circumventing the Senate, and Sampson suggested Gonzalez didn't like the idea.

However, this defies reason. The staff continued to push for the circumvention, going so far as to assert that the option must be kept for the Attorney General to have direct appointments.

Serious doubts about the Member of Congress ability to assert their oath and promise to protect the Constitution. The era of Member of Congress and attorney self-governance is over. [ Pass this link to your friends ]

* * *

Bluntly, if the Attorney General didn't like the idea of circumventing the Senate, as unconstitutionally permitted under the Patriot Act, why would DOJ Legislative Liaison push to [a] inset the Option in the Patriot act; and [b] hope to keep the option open for the Attorney General?

The e0mails and staffing related to the Patriot Act do not support the view that the AG didn't like the option. All evidence says the oppoise: The Attorney General was instrumental in pushing for Senate circumvention, did not want to be associated with the decision, but was involved with the details related to the language.

Recall the plan which DoJ Staff said they had coordinated with legal, political, and public affairs. Step for emphatically included the AG-involvement in the direct appointment.

STEP 4: Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates: During December 2006- January 2007, the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President, evaluates and selects candidates for Attorney General-appointment (or candidates who may become Acting U.S. Attorney by operation of law) to serve upon the resignation of above-listed U.S. Attorneys.

This plan, including Step 4, was coordinated with the White House counsel, legal, political, and public affairs. The plan, as approved, included Step 4 which included Department of Justice, in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President.

___ Who in the White House approved a plan to circumvent the Constitution; yet they would ask that this Presidential-involvement "did not involve" the President? This defies reason.

___ Who can credibly ask that we believe [a] people inside the White House counsel's office approved this plan; yet [b] somehow the President wasn't aware that he was going to implement an unconstitutional provision?

Read this again:

STEP 4: Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates: During December 2006- January 2007, the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President, evaluates and selects candidates for Attorney General-appointment (or candidates who may become Acting U.S. Attorney by operation of law) to serve upon the resignation of above-listed U.S. Attorneys.

Then consider this:

Ref Here it is on page 29: After proposing the unconstitutional plan to circumvent the Senate, DoJ Staff reports that all agencies in the White House had approved of the plan, which involved the President, White House counsel, and Attorney General:

We're go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."Details

This plan, when approved, required work flow checklists to be developed. These checklists ensure that the President's staff and DOJ fully coordinate on all steps.

___ Where are these work flow plans; and when were the work flow plans required to support Step 4 crafted, filled, and part of he staff review and work flow process?

___ Who, by name, is arguing that the approved plan involving the President, which the White House counsel would have developed a work flow checklist item for, yet the President did not have any involvement? This defies reason.

___ Who is suggesting that the White House and DOJ are "committed" to implementing this plan -- including Step 4 -- yet the AG did "not" share this commitment after he coordinated on the plan? This is absurd. He knew the direct appointment was unconstitutional; or he's reckless in not comprehending the illegality.

___ Where is the work flow plan this White House counsel planned to use to implement this Senate circumvention?

___ Who specifically, when they approved this plan, was tasked with developing the checklists for the President and Staff to follow, that would ensure the AG, White House counsel, and President did coordinate on the provisions in Step 4?

___ How can a plan that AG supposedly had reservations with -- as reported by Sampson -- get approved; yet the plan, at its core, was unconstitutional?

___ What happened to the AG's oath of office requiring him to follow the Constitution, and not do anything that would illegally circumvent the Constitution, as this Patriot Act provision did?

___ What were Member of Congress responses when they were aware of this 4-point plan; and how did they justify their "shocked, shocked" given the plan explicitly included in Step 4 language that directly mentioned the AG appointment role?

* * *

Recall, one of the options of the plan to fire the US Attorneys was to handle the political fallout. How could anyone say that AG Gonzalez didn't like this circumvention, yet there was approval from the AG, Miers, and others in the White House; and this plan was coordinated and approved through legal, public affairs, and the political office?


If AG Gonzalez, as Sampson suggests, "didn't like" the idea, there is no e-mail evidence to suggest the AG held this view.

___ Which e-mail accounts did the Attorney General review the dissenting comments?

___ Why did the AG not publicly state from the outside, "I reject this idea and circumvention," as opposed to saying he was not involved, despite his involvement?

___ Why would the AG deny involvement with something that he was involved; yet the "apparent involvement" was a denial, according to Sampson?

___ Wouldn't it seem reasonable, if Sampson's characterization was correct -- that the AG rejected the unconstitutional circumvention -- for the AG to publicly point to something that would emphatically say that he was not involved and/or rejected the idea; as opposed to saying he was not involved, yet he did not timely reject the idea?

___ Where are the e-mails from anyone showing that they were supposed to this unconstitutional change to the Constitution?

___ How does AG Gonzalez justify confidence that he was putting the Constitution first and preserving it; yet there are no e-mails showing he opposed what was not Constitutional?

___ Where is there any documentation, notes, memorandum, where anyone in the US DoJ, White House counsel, or anyone in the Congress raised a concern that this circumvention of the Senate was unconstitutional; and that the change in the bill was an illegal, unconstitutional change to the Constitution outside the required Amendment process?

___ In light of Weirs, is the US Government -- all three branches -- saying that nobody, but TPM, dared to question this process?

___ Who inside the US government took an oath to protect the Constitution; yet there is no record that anyone raised a concern about the unconstitutionality of this change?

There is a serious problem when this many peole take an oath to preserve the Constitution, they are lawyers, yet there is no evidence they removed themselves from an illegal change to the Constitution. These are serious issues. US Attorneys could be disbarred for not having fully asserted their oath.

This assent to illegal activity is no different than the FISA-NSA violations, NSLs, or Geneva-rendition-prisoner abuse issues. Clear standards were violated.

___ Why do attorneys have to be reminded of their solemn duty to preserve the Constitution; yet when given discretion to act in secret, they abuse the trust of We the People?

I would prefer some leadership from the ABA and Members of Congress in the GOP: What is their plan to ensure illegal changes to the Constitution do not occur ever?

* * *

Email

The plan to replace:

"STEP 3: Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval: U.S. Attorneys desiring to save their jobs (aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department= community), likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. We should expect these efforts to be strenuous. Direct and indirect appeals of the Administration's determination to seek these resignations likely will be directed at: various White House offices,"

Why Wasn't Gonzalez Concerned with the Unconstitutionality?

In re H.R. 580

See Wiener, "Inter-Branch Appointments After the Independent Counsel: Court Appointment of United States Attorneys," 86 Minn. L. Rev. 363, 428 (2001) (concluding that court appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys is unconstitutional).

___ How can an AG-direct appointment be Constitution in light of Wiener?

___ Despite issues of unconstitutionality, someone in DOJ coordinated on the updates to the Patriot Act. How did the updates, permitting Senate circumvention, get into the Patriot Act without AG Gonzalez knowing about them; and him not raising any issues of unconstitutionality?

___ When there was opposition to the circumvention provision in the Patriot Act, how did the DOJ Staff justify the AG direct appointment?

___ Where are copies of e-mails to Members of Congress to respond to concerns that the AG would have unconstitutional powers?

___ How could the direct appointment circumvent the Senate, but nobody in the Senate would cath this provision; nobody would raise a comment; and yet the AG says he was opposed to the idea?

___ How does a clause get into a bill that nobody notices -- someone put it there -- but the chief architect of that language -- the AG -- would has us believe that he was opposed to the idea; yet nobody else was opposed to the idea?

This makes no sense. If the AG was opposed to anything, then he must have had some discussion with someone related to this opposition.

___ Where is the Senate/Member of Congerss e-mail to DoJ Staff related to these concerns of Unconstitutional circumvention; and how did the DOJ Staff justify the provision?

___ How can AG Gonzalez say that he was opposed to something that was giving him power to avoid the Senate and directly appoint to avoid delays in appointing new Attorney Generals?

IT does not seem reasonable that the DOJ AG opposed the idea. At best, it solved a problem with the GOP Senate; at worst it allowed the AG to directly appoint people the DNC would oppose with a DNC control of the Senate.

AG Gonzalez denial, and Sampson's convoluted explanation are not supported by the e-mails, or the method by which DOJ Staff interacts with Members of Congress on issues of the Constitution.

Either AG Gonzalez had reservations, yet did nothing to address this concern by going to the Senate and getting a change; or the real problem: Members of Congress, despite the Unconstitutional clause, rubber stamped an illegal amendment to the US Constitution.

___ What is the role Members of Congress played in this Unconstitutional change to the US Constitution; and how did they rubber stamp legislation that was an illegal amendment outside the required Amendment process?