Power

Power is to be used lawfully when you have it. This is a requirement when refusing to assert power leaves the Constitution in an inferior state. Indeed, power can have effect when it is not used; but power sometimes must be asserted.

The focus cannot shift from the today's legal requirement to protect the Constitution to tomorrow's desire to pursue more power. This is not fully asserting one's oath. The certain law trumps the desire of mortals.

The requirement is to assert power today to protect the Constitution today; not remain silent asking that inaction of today be rewarded with more power tomorrow.

* * *

The flawed logic of the DNC is that they want to pursue the White House, and cannot use their power today.

Power is to be used; unused, power isn't something that whithers away, it's something that is unexercised. People need practice asserting power. Those who refuse to assert power today are not more qualified to assert it tomorrow.

Leaders who refuse to assert power today to protect the Constitution are not the most qualified to get more power tomorrow. They have no track record of having fully asserted their oath.

What will be the thing that makes the "ones who do not use power today" prepared to use power in the future? Practice.

There can be lawful consequences for abusing power. And for failing to assert power. Criminal activity is wrong as is the enabler who refuses to challenge that illegal activity.

Until the DNC show they can use power today despite their lesser political goals and ambitions, they cannot credibly argue they're supportable for their goals, much less ours.

* * *

It can hardly be suggested that avoiding a clash of factions will produce superior results. The failure to clash over Iraq WMD enabled a President to expand illegal warfare.

The clash of factions would have more likely than not forced flawed arguments to fall aside, and inspire pointed questions with better challenges of the dubious.

That which is not challenged remains dubious. This President has impermissibly challenged the Constitution; it is dubious for the DNC to suggest inaction fully meets their oath of office requirements.

* * *

The error is to have power and not use it when it is required; but change the focus from today's requirements, to their goal of achieving power.

The oath trumps their goals. The power they have must be asserted today.

The DNC is in the minority position with respect to Executive Power -- but it is on equal footing when it comes to power of the Federal Government.

* * *

The job of we the people is to determine what must be done to make the DNC minority act like leaders. Until we compel them as a minority to do what they must, they have no reason to do what they should.

We the People have the power. Those in the DNC who want more power need to show they will use the power they have to assert their oath, not claim their lesser goal of acquiring more power trumps their oath.

The oath and its requirements today trumps the goal of acquiring more power tomorrow. The oath is certain; whether they do or do not acquire power is speculative.

The DNC needs to be rebuked for acting no better than the GOP: Using partisan goals of power to subordinate their oath and their legal obligations to to those goals. That is circular, not lawful, and contrary to their duty to subordinate all things to the Constitution. Their oath cannot be twisted to justify anything less.

We the People cannot expect anything less. Indeed, this expectation is clearly promulgated through Our Will in 5 USC 3331.

Time to turn the spotlight of oversight on the Members of Congress and jointly hold them to account for failing to assert their oath on issues of war crimes, oversight, Geneva violations, and Constitutional attacks.

We the People can send the same message of change to new leaders.