DC really does mean… district of criminals

Published 14 years ago -  - 14y ago 49

The following is a challenge to any and all attorneys, any and all publicly elected officials – federal/state/local, any and all military men – non-commissioned and commissioned officers or any and all law enforcement officers. All of the people in these categories take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a required first act in accepting that job or office. The oath taken to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution applies to all enemies foreign and domestic.

Whether the Constitution is in force or if it even exists arises again in the October 22, 2007 Washington Post article titled “Immunity for Telecoms May Set Bad Precedent, Legal Scholars Say – Retroactive Protection Could Create Problems in the Future”. It can be read here.

The challenge or question to all of the above-mentioned “oath-takers” and the esteemed legal scholars at the Washington Post is … how is any bill passed by Congress and signed by the President legal and enforceable if it includes conditions or clauses that are retroactive? Any retroactive or ex post facto law irrefutably violates Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Wherein it states:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

With further emphasis by Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void of law.”

Any law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 for example, passed with retroactive features only has the color of law and in fact is not law. Anything that can be retroactively changed from illegal to legal will be changed by those in power. Being able to pass a law after the fact empties the rule of law.

Take a moment and watch Jack Cafferty of CNN explain how GWBush has attempted to retroactively pardon/immunize himself from war crimes indictments with the passing of the Military Commission Act of 2006. Watch it here – WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?  The indictment of GWBush and his administration cabal for war crimes is not simply a hypothetical risk. Donald Rumsfeld while in Paris, France has been charged with war crimes on October 27, 2007 and reportedly had to flee that country to avoid being arrested. Read about it hereand here.

The current considerations by Congress to meet the demands of GWBush and modify the FISA court, thus attempting to make legal warrantless searches/wiretaps and provide retroactive immunity for Telecom companies are not “Bad Legal Precedent”. They are clear and publicly admitted crimes. The numerous Bill of Rights violations by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the proposed changes to the FISA court (itself constitutionally dubious since it is a secret court and not a public one) are wholly detached from the rule of law. LEX REX is the rule and not REX LEX.

“….in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is Law, so in free Countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” Thomas Paine, Common Sense 57 (Philadelphia 1776)

This proposed FISA bill and the MCA of 2006 are in effect direct assaults on the value and utility of language. Does “no” mean “no”? Is there any single word more important than “no”?

A brief Constitutional review on the value of the word “no” is instructive. Please read the first ten amendments to the Constitution, aka the Bill of Rights, found here. Every one of the ten, except the Sixth, which acknowledges universal and undeniable trial rights, uses crucial words of negation (no-nor-not-never) to define the character, function and prohibition against the rights of the people being violated. The First Amendment famously starts off, “Congress shall make no law …” These rights enumerated in the first ten amendments are notlicenses or privileges granted by government but are held inherently by the people.

Some of the specific criminal violations by members of Congress and the President in passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and with the proposed FISA changes can be found in the US Code as follows: 

§ 242. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law 

§ 241. Conspiracy Against Rights 

§ 2383. Rebellion or Insurrection (A form of Treason) 

§ 2384. Seditious Conspiracy 

§ 371. Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States

All of the above violations are serious felonies. All of the people involved are subject to prosecution. The government, all its officers and agents are subject to the law and not above it. Especially the President, since he is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer with the Department of Justice and Attorney General being part of the Executive Branch.

§ 2. Principals 

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws . . . .” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). Justice Tom Clarke

“(N)o man is above the law; that every man, irrespective of station in life, or position presently occupied, is subject along with all others to the same laws and the same considerations to our courts.” Grobholz v. Merdel Mortgage Inv. Co., 170 A. R. 815, 817 ( Ct. App. N.J. 1934). Justice Perskie

“It violates the cardinal precept…that this shall be a government of laws–because to the precise extent that the mere will of an official or an official body is permitted to take the place of allowable official discretion or to supplant the standing law as a rule of human conduct, the government ceases to be one of laws and becomes an autocracy.” Jones v. Securities and Exch. Com., 298 U.S. 1, 23-24 (1936). Justice Sutherland

“Under our system the people, who are there (in England) called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered.

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.” US v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)

Rightly applying the historic words of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Military Commission Act of 2006 for many reasons is void of law, regardless of the Congress passing it and the President signing it.

One might ask … But what if a Congressional Act is passed unanimously by the House and Senate and signed by the President, would that be a legal modification of the Constitution? No. In order for any ex post facto law to be legal the Constitution must first be modified with a successful Article V procedure that removes the ex post facto prohibition before any retroactive bill or act could be passed lawfully by Congress.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

At the national level only the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority – with no input from the President – can propose an amendment to the Constitution. Two-thirds of the state legislatures or conventions can also propose amendments to the Constitution. In order for a proposed amendment to validly pass, it requires three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions to pass the unaltered and originally proposed amendment. Any and all branches of the Federal Government have no Constitutional authority to make any changes to the Constitution, neither by Executive Order or signing statement from the President nor a bill passed unanimously by Congress nor judicial legislation via case rulings from the Supreme Court.

Since the authority for changing the Constitution rests solely with the state legislatures or conventions, the reality of preeminent states rights is unassailable. The federal government is a subordinate agent of the people through the several, separate and sovereign states and is likewise bound to the terms and conditions described in the Constitution. To use an analogy … If the FedGov was the preexistent parent, it would not need permission from its children, the states, to change its rules of behavior. The FedGov however is the offspring of preexistent parents, the several states, and bound to the conditions agreed to by its parents. It must first properly ask and then wait for a sufficient number of its parents to grant its request before any change in behavior is lawful.

The dire nature of the present Constitutional crisis necessitates extraordinary action. Men and women must be willing to step up, declare the real and present threat to the nation and stop the willful destruction of the people’s rights and the Constitution by a renegade Congress and dictatorial President.

The Pelosian Democrats, save a few like Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, have spinelessly abdicated their majority obligation to impeach or indict the president for his countless high crimes and misdemeanor violations.

Only a few Congressional Republicans, like Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina, have not joined the leashed lapdogs in residence at the White House.

The command structure of the military continues to snap salutes and blindly follow unlawful orders sending more men into the maw of undeclared and baseless wars around the world.

And the attorney class of professors, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, et al is as silent as death. They should be massed in the streets clamoring for the restoration of the rule of law and the foundation of their supposed profession, the Constitution. As the BBC reports on November 05, 2007 … Do the judges and attorneys in Pakistan better understand the core value of their constitution (aka the rule of law) and are actually willing to fight for it, while America’s legal profession sits on their moribund asses?!  

Police have used tear gas and baton charges to break up demonstrations by Pakistani lawyers against the country’s state of emergency. 

Lawyers’ associations across the country said they were calling three days of protests and boycotts of courts.

Media reports, citing police and interior ministry sources, said around 1,500 people had been arrested in the last 48 hours, while many top judges were effectively under house arrest.

The sacked chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, said Gen Musharraf’s manoeuvre was “illegal, unconstitutional and against the orders of the Supreme Court.”

There is no special prosecutor law and if there was, the Democrats surely do not have the backbone to appoint one.

The US attorneys that understand the criminal nature of the GWBush presidency do not have the courage to impanel a real grand jury and present evidence to the people.

Who is left that could immediately freeze the criminal actions of the Congress and the President by speaking a simple NO about proposed changes to the FISA court and the passage of the MCA of 2006? What group of people has the power and reputation to halt our descent into totalitarianism being lead by both political parties? The Supreme Court has that raw political power.

“As the Nation’s ultimate judicial tribunal, this Court, beyond any other organ of society, is the trustee of law and charged with the duty of securing obedience to it.” United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 312 (1947). Justice Frankfurter

Members of Congress and the President have committed criminal acts against the rights of the people and more. No one with the responsibility and the power to effect change is acting. Extraordinary times dictate that people perform unprecedented feats.

The Supreme Court members effectively take the same oath of office as the President and the members of Congress. Without a doubt they fully comprehend that the rights of the people and fabric of the nation are being dismembered. They are no less obligated to report a crime than anyone else.

§ 4. Misprision of Felony 

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Here is a recommended course of action.

Have two Supreme Court Justices, for example Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, recuse themselves temporarily from the Court. Then in their personal capacity file Federal Criminal Complaints in a court of competent jurisdiction describing the violations by the Executive and the Congress in passing the MCA of 2006 and the proposed modifications of the FISA court. That documentation would include a motion to impanel an open federal grand jury to consider all these facts and more. It is further suggested that the two justices be joined in filing these documents with a team of federal prosecutors and constitutional lawyers, people such as Elisabeth de la Vega, Bruce Fein, Andrew Napolitano, Jonathan Turley and others.

Waiting for constitutionalist Ron Paul to become President-elect in 2008 is more than 12 months away. The slide into the political abyss may be too deep by then.

Luke 11 – NASB

45 One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, “Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too.”

46 But He said, “Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

James 4 – NASB

17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.


Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

49 recommended
comments icon 0 comments
0 notes
bookmark icon

Write a comment...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *