We the People Created the Constitution
Constitutions are not like independent entities which take on a life of their own. Once the Constitution was created, it is not something that can independently work. It requires effort to put it into effect
The question is: What do We the People, as the creator of the Constitution, do when those we entrust our power, refuse to honor our creation. It is not theirs to defy; it is ours to impose. There are two options: We either work with this Constitution; or we agree that this Constitution isn't working and something must be improved.
We the People as its creator may transform that document into something new. We also have the lawful option to destroy it and replace it with something better.
The Constitution existence and requirement isn't debatable. The debates about whether the Constitution was needed lawfully ended more than 200 years.
Today's debate -- whether the rule of law should or should not be fully asserted by the Federal and State officials -- is not within the scope of reasonableness. It is not a debatable point whether the President is or is not required to assent to the rule of law. His power rests on the assumption that he will fully assert his oath to compel all to remain subject to the law.
No Speaker has the power to suggest discretion where there is a requirement.
Our job is to explore what failed in government and the civilian sector. Those who claim things are off the table, cannot be examined, or cannot be discussed do not understand oversight. All things are reviewable. When people say that something cannot be examined, the State and Federal government refusal to fully assert one’s oath becomes the object of oversight.
Saying something is off the table does not answer: Where is that option once it is removed; and is this table something we are required to sit. The Speaker has no power to compel us to sit at a table where the Constitutional tools are removed; rather, where the options are removed, We the People have the power to compel the Speaker to join another table.
If this Speaker doesn’t like these options, she is free to find another House to clean. Our House is not one for her to talk about changing, but leaving in disrepair, or rewarded for not having done what it should do as its number one priority: Defend the Constitution against the domestic enemies.
It matters little that the domestic enemies are in the Oval Office or Speaker’s Office.
The DNC says that impeachment is off the table. Fine, for the moment, let's accept that as a decision.
The decision to take impeachment off the table is subject to review, audit, examination, and discussion.
___ Why is impeachment off the table?
___ What was the basis, without information, to say that something was not an option?
Questions which relate to this refusal to act are important when applied to other areas.
Those questions related to the refusal to keep impeachment on the table are the important questions. The answers are less important than recognizing what questions the leadership does not want to answer.
These unanswered questions as they relate to the refusal to keep impeachment on the able become the questions that cannot be credibly answered in other areas. They should be answered.
The issue is less than the decision to reuse to impeach; but what that decision requires us to accept.
The results are less important than understanding the implicit questions -- attached with that refusal -- the leadership does not want to discuss.
The error is for the leadership to believe that they can refuse to address an issue, but not discuss their refusal.
We the people can take it a step further: Why does the leadership refuse to discuss their refusal.
It can hardly be said that change is at hand when the leadership is making new excuses to do what they were told needed t change: Leadership's refusal to be responsive to the people.
Excuses to not do what one should are not being responsive, but is the subject for voter rebuke in 2008.
The DNC cannot be sure that it will get support; but this lack of support does not mean that the GOP Will gain. IT can mean that We the People will, through sheer numbers, jointly agree that the DNC and GOP shall be forced to assent to new requirements which the DNC and GOP have no power to block.
We the People may lawfully create a new system of oversight which is outside Congress and something that We the People jointly agree is above the US government. The Supreme Law shall be supreme, even if it requires a More Supreme system to compel the leadership to do what it says it would do by oath.
We the People are not required to embrace fiction of change when the status quo remains. Change is possible. Whether Congress has input to this new process is beyond debate: They are denied the power to compel We the People to assent to what is folly; or agree to what is unresponsive.
We the People can openly debate outside Congress and new system of oversight that will lawfully compel Members of Congress, Executive Branch Personnel, and others to account.
Change is in the air. Either change comes from within; or We the People may lawfully impose through non-violent means reasonable solutions. That which was created can be improved and lawfully changed and enhanced.
We the People may lawfully create a New Constitution, outside the Amendment process, and Congress is powerless to stop this change. Congress can be relegated to an irrelevant body, one that is required to be a rubber stamp for legislation a larger system will credibly develop and debate.
Congress may exist, but it can be made irrelevant. It can hardly be argued Congress is the “Greatest” deliberative body in the world when it refuses to discuss Presidential crimes; and actively targets State officials to shut down debates to do something about it.
Members of Congress should be encouraged to enjoy their power while they have it. WE the People may lawfully delegate that power to new entities which have the real power to compel lawful change.