House Leadership Impermissibly Places Will of Tyrants Over Constitution

The House Judiciary Chairman has allegedly violated 5 USC 3331 oath of office. The Constitution does not delegate any rule making power to the Executive; nor have we the People delegated any legislative power to the Department of Justice.

The Chairman may not claim he can listen to the President on issues of secrecy; but ignore We the People in our demand that the President be held to account for his illegal conduct.

The Constitution is clear: Tyrants shall be checked with impeachment, not assented to in violation of the Constitution.

* * *

House Leadership Has No Consistent Story On Who They Listen To

The House leadership would have us believe that they "can't" do certain things that We the People want; yet when it comes to the demands of parties outside the House, the House leadership will quickly assent to those demands.

Curious how the House leadership has a double standard on whether they will or will not respond to requirements. When there is a requirement to protect the Constitution, they will not act; but when there is a requirement by DoJ to keep silent about illegal activity, the House leadership finds a way to cooperate.

They remain in rebellion against the rule of law and have not defense. It is not constitutional for the House to permit the Executive to define what shall or shall not be secret in the Legislature; nor may the Executive usurp legislative power to decide how the House shall conduct its business. This is exclusive legislative power delegated only to the House, not the President.

The House has impermissibly assented to the usurpation of legislative power by the President and has failed to preserve the Constitution. The House Judiciary Chairman is alleged to have violated his 5 USC 3331 oath of office requiring him to fully assert his oath of office; and preserve the Constitution; not make excuses to assent to illegal usurpation of legislative power by the Executive. He has excuses to listen to the President; but "no time" to consider the will of We the People expressed in the oath of office: The Constitution shall be preserved; and all legal options must be asserted to defend this Constitution, including impeachment.

* * *

The Constitution does not delegate to the Department of Justice any power to decide whether proceedings of the House may remain secret. Where the House leadership says it cannot respond to We the People on issues of impeachment, it cannot explain its inconsistency when it will respond to the rules of the Department of Justice:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. Ref

We the People have a simple rule: Assert your oath; but this House leadership makes excuses not to do that; but will find a way to incorporate rules keeping secret this President's crimes. Their loyalty to the Constitution is dubious.

___ When did the DOJ become part of the House to have a role in "determining" the rules of the proceeding?

- -

Notice who has input to the judgment of what should or should not remain secret. The Constitution delegates this power only to the House, not to the Department of Justice. There is no foundation for the House leadership to ignore We the People; but then contradict itself and assent to the Department of Justice:

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; Ref

___ When did the DOJ get elected to the House to have any input or influence on the House "judgment" that secrecy was required?

There is nothing in the Constitution which includes the President or Justice Department under the House. The House and Executive Branch are not the same. The House cannot assent to rules which the President and Department of Justice define. These rules of secrecy are beyond what the House judges is prudent; it is only prudent for this President, a Tyrant, to keep secret.

It is not lawful nor consistent with the Constitution for the House leadership to permit the President and Department of Justice to impose rules on the House; but the House will not assent to its oath or Our Will in the Constitution: The requirement to preserve the Constitution, and impeach the President when he remains a domestic enemy of Our Will.

We do not have a republic when the Executive Branch is able to exercise legislative powers and decide what the legislature will or will not keep secret. This is not a power delegated to the Executive; only to the Legislature.

___ Why is the legislature giving up its exclusive power to decide what shall or shall not be secret; and permitting another branch to decide what the House has the sole power to decide?

The House cannot explain its decision to violate the Separation of Powers doctrine. The Executive was not delegated any power to make rules for the Legislature. We the People did not elect the DOJ to the House; nor have we delegated any powers to the DOJ to have any input or authority over the Legislature.

This Congress, as with the illegal usurpation of Senate power, has assented to illegal usurpation of House rule-making power by this Executive. This is not constitutional.

* * *

The precedent has been set: Congress can agree to rules, procedures, and standards from entities that do not reside in the House.

The House will listen to the DOJ on rules related to secrecy, but the House will not listen to We the People on impeachment.

___ Why is there a double standard on whether the House will or will not respond to outside pressure?

___ Why, despite a so called "Mandate" of the 2006 election, does the House leadership ignore We the People in re impeachment; but when it comes to a matter of secrecy, the House will agree with the DoJ?

___ How does the House leadership explain it's inconsistency: Ignoring its oath, not punishing the President, ignoring we the People; but paying attention to the demands of the DOJ who are not part of the House?

___ Is there any reasonable basis that the DOJ is given more deference than the Constitution itself, the oath, or the rule of law or will of We the People?

___ How does the House leadership explain its lopsided priorities: Giving deference to people who are in the DOJ; but ignoring the will of We the People?

* * *

Curious how the House leadership will, without a vote, assent to a tyrant; but attempts to block state efforts to force a vote on impeachment. In secret they agree with Tyrants; pubicly they refuse to be accountable for their failure to protect the Constitution. They keep secret their agreement not to preserve the Constution. This is impermissible.

This is abuse of power and no different than the tyrant they claim they challenge. No, they have assented to him.

Beware the House Judiciary Chairman.