This week another "politically" generated news story has literally been beaten to death in the mainstream and web media, and that is the story regarding the arrest and detainment of a black Cambridge professor by a white police patrol officer, who just so happened to be a close personal friend of the current resident of the Executive Office on the Hill, Barack Obama.
This story has gotten more media coverage than it would appear the actual facts of the case would engender, as have quite a few in more recent years due to the turn our news sources have taken from being factual and informative watchdogs with respect to reporting real hard hitting news on current political events to more of a National Enquirer on celebrities and politicians personal lives, or on the flip side, PR press agents and media spinners in cahoots with Washington with respect to any and all real political reporting.
For heaven sake, Colin Powell now was even given air time on Larry King dissecting this situatuion, of course as ex-military using his military experience to put in his two cents. Unfortunately, what Mr. Powell fails to realize is that your average neighborhood isn't Iraq, and the police actually work for the U.S. citizens and the police are not our commanding officers and can and do overstep their boundaries more and more so it appears due to the focus now on training police to suspect everyone and anyone of "terrorism" making the police now terrorists themselves, especially young graduates with this "new" training.
He also spoke of an "adult" supervisor being called in. Weren't these two men both adults? Or at least over 21? And this entire incident with all the publicity now surrounding it seems there is an agenda here to either keep the racial thing an ever present "threat" (terrorism) or also to threaten the public that if the police should attempt to arrest you on your own property, then don't simply comply with their requests, but don't dispute their assumptions or work even verbally?
Officers are now pulling guns for traffic violations in some areas of the country. And it appears the federal government is facilitating now not only this domestic surveillance, but civil unrest due to just such tactics in no longer recognizing that Americans do have "unalienable" and civil rights. Or maybe these jack boot police methods are simply meant to stimulate the economies of the industry which wrote some of those unconstitutional "Acts" post 9/11 - the lawyers in this country. After all, we have more than all of Europe combined at this point, most of which are not trained in the true law at all. Our Constitution.
And at this point with all the brouhaha surrounding it, is begining to sound more and more suspect as another attempt to keep the racial thing alive and in the media. Stories such as these given so much press, and especially due to the fact that this conveniently was an acquaintance and friend of Obama's, means there is an agenda here, folks, and it is to deflect and distract.
A legal tool those educated in America's law schools or who have worked in that now "industry" are quite familiar with, and whom hold many seats in government and also dominant the staffs of most Congressional members and the Executive office. It's the old "smoke and mirrors" defensive tactic now being utilized nationwide in conjunction with the corporate news media organizations.
I guess government classes were also skipped by those majoring in journalism in our universities and the "dumbing down" of America progressively which has occurred has actually been facilitated by Washington itself now that the Department of Education is determining local school curriculums now more and more.
No wonder more and more parents are choosing to home school their kids. And their tyranny now even is beginning to rear its ugly head in this respect.
Several state and some government agencies are now using their regulatory powers to attempt to preclude homeschooled or "alternatively educated" citizens from working within the federal or state government. We now have "education discrimination" rearing its head in order to socialize education in this country. State and federal laws also dictate even private school curriculums at this point. These new requirements which are now being concocted expressly state in some of their published material that a "public school and public university" education is required for the jobs listed.
Good way to also water down and use the regulatory agencies then in order to simply "regulate" away any and all private or charitable religious or faith based schools while not directly attacking the Bill of Rights Constitutional protections in the process. So far it appears little progress has been made on this due to its blatant Constitutional abridgment. It appears Big Daddy government wants not only now to socialized medicine and decide who lives and dies ultimately in this country, but socialize education and control, and parent the citizens from birth to death in the process.
Even though with the current tax structures the way they are, whether Americans use the public education system or not, they are paying for it one way or another.
What was interesting about this Gate case was the fact that it not only made the news (and national media attention) at all, but just where did this "scoop" come from anyway?
And who reported the "crime in progress" since it would appear it would have had to have been one of his own neighbors since it is rare indeed now that officers even patrol neighborhoods anymore, rather are too busy earning that federal grant money parking outside local sports bars and restaurants in order to catch the social drinking crowd as now more and more revenue collectors for the states rather than "common defense" for the communities as in past generations.
Thus, neighborhood security is another one of those former governmental functions for which the taxpayer pay local taxes and for which they now do not receive those services, and more and more neighborhoods across the country have been placed in the position of then having to pay for private security. We are now "privatizing" another governmental function and supporting the science and technology bottoom lines in home security devices through again state and federal negligence in using those public sums for public purposes. Crime now actually has become a "job stimulus" and Washington's "jobs and the economy" focus seems a little bent at this point insofar as whose jobs and whose economies they are truly interested in stimuluating, and at whose expense.
It appears the foreigners and criminals are actuallly now unofficially the "citizens" Washington truly is now representing. Or purposely enabling to commit their crimes, shall we say.
Since without their help and support, those campaign donations from their corporate benefactors might dry up. Truly address crime prevention, or secure our borders and just look at how many industries bottom lines might be compromised. The home security and gadget companies. Silicon Valley. Medical & health profession. Pharmaceutical industry. Behavioral health specialists. Funeral directors. The greatest industry that has been stimulated post 9/11 is the first in the list, the gadget industry, and in additional now online web schools majoring in "degrees" in Homeland Security now for a few thousand for their "bachelor's" programs. But the real beneficiaries especially are....
The lawyers most of all, who dominate all three houses of government in some capacity or another. In fact, they are now writing 1,000 page bills which our Congressional representatives are voting on without reading as a further "job stimulus" for the legal industry. Of which our Pres claims to be one. But certainly not a Constitutional lawyer, that much is clear.
Property theft and other such property crimes in fact are the highest crimes bar none than any other in most metropolitan cities and states, and has increased in leaps and bounds the past twenty years as the local governments collect more, but provide less in public services for those taxes, while paying out more instead to their private grant and no bid contract recipients.
And if Dr. Gates was a Cambridge professor, upon this officer's investigation of the "crime in progress" with his attempting to break into his own home in which he was locked out, wouldn't the officer have patted him down or requested he empty his pockets before actually arresting him and thus easily able to confirm that it was his own house that he was breaking into?
This entire story seems another simply to "humanize" President Obama as the "good guy" and more a public relations stunt in order to charm the public, a public that is getting increasingly angry over the quite evident lack of any true "hope" or "change," and nothing more than a new Administration focused on feeding Wall Street and their own political careers most of all, rather than performing or restricting themselves to their Constitutionally outlined duties and functions.
Like ending the war. Taxing the insourcing and outsourcing corporations which have resulted in the loss of literally thousands of American jobs. Securing America's borders.
You know, the boring stuff of public office.
We are, after all, still in this "no win" war, the middle class in Detroit was just stripped of their jobs, unemployment, joblessness and homelessness are at their highest levels since the Depression, and Mr. Obama's L. Ron Hubbard Orwellesque Health Care Reform and its increased costs and wayward spending agendas instead of addressing the bad legislation and negligent actions with respect to regulatory functions on many of these industries which occurred under many prior Congresses and Administrations and which is what lead to this economic disaster, and the continuing now war I suppose wouldn't increase the rating numbers enough to hike up the rates by those networks for the ad spots for those beer commercials.
But Dr. Gates, the officer and Obama will be having a beer, demonstrating what a "regular guy," and Average Joe the Pres actually is with his domestic diplomatic skills. Great guy, that Pres. Remember that when the pink slip arrives, how much he promised to "change" the tax burdens and increasing homelessness of the average middle class guy, after all.
You know, when all that new taxpayer stimulus money was earmarked fundamentally for "new home buyers" or simply to temporarily renegotiate some of those usurous loans which were sold to the public, without any changes in the practices of the banks and lenders in those predatory loans to simply trap a new generation of middle class buyers or prolong the agony of those currently in danger of losing theirs especially now when the inflationary and those new "Cap and Trade" taxes kick in increasing your utility payments for those Wall Street bankers profit margins yet again.
Interesting also that a great many university professors, especially East Coast Ivy League professors, also belong to the Council on Foreign Relations, that New York "think tank" that also is populated with Fortune 500 Wall Street companies and under Rockefellar grant monies (who also fund the ACLU) directly determine through their members and their members within the Senate and House Foreign Affairs committees, our foreign policies. Like the war now in the Middle East. Apparently the Council's legal counsels and members are advising them on the "smoke and mirrors" defense also.
And also new legislation. Such as the "Cybersecurity Act" that resulted in the House Energy Committees switchboard being shut down during the Cap & Trade debates for Wall Street and the bankers also bottom line due to being "overwhelmed," by faxes and emails from the public, while they then just went ahead and passed the bill anyway. Illegally, actually, since such a tax is fundamentally illegal under our existing Constitution as not at all a function of the federal government in the slightest, and based upon fabricated and inconclusive "evidence," funded by the banks, utilities and energy companies who will be the beneficiaries. And some of those "scientist" professors also on the Council on Foreign Relations.
At least this one pushed the "First Dog" stories and Michelle's wardrobe choices off the front pages.
Spin, distract, deflect.
The new political tap dance is getting real, real old - and most of today's journalists do appear to now be receiving their salaries through federal grant monies. Through either their "corporate" employer, or directly.
Showing posts with label office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label office. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Congressman Shadegg Reintroduces Enumerated Powers Act
Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) is again attempting to reintroduce the "Enumerated Powers Act" (HR-450) in order to attempt to self-regulate the U.S. Congress and constrain it to its Constitutional powers and duties as enumerated in the United States Constitution.
This "Act" has and was drafted and introduced by Mr. Shadegg during several previous Congressional sessions.
The Act provides that prior to any legislation being referred to Committee or vote of Congress, a specific reference to the Constitutional authority which grants such power to the federal government must be included within the Bill.
In short, it has been voted down by the members of Congress on each and every instance in the past to formalize this Constitutional into statute. Which speaks volumes in and of itself.
However, at the present time, there is already such an informal agreement and House Rule which provides such requirements. So what has Congress done?
They continue making end runs around this Rule and instead "liberally" again translate the Constitution by using two introductory words as the stated basis for such legislation - the phantom "general welfare" clause.
Which is really no clause at all and simply a preface stated in the Preamble to our Constitution in order to state the "intent" of the contractual nature of the Constitution and it's purpose, and also which is used again as an introductory preface to the outlined duties and functions of Congress as contained with Article I, Section 8.
In fact, James Madison, the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution" had this to say about the purported "general welfare" clause:
"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
This "Act" has and was drafted and introduced by Mr. Shadegg during several previous Congressional sessions.
The Act provides that prior to any legislation being referred to Committee or vote of Congress, a specific reference to the Constitutional authority which grants such power to the federal government must be included within the Bill.
In short, it has been voted down by the members of Congress on each and every instance in the past to formalize this Constitutional into statute. Which speaks volumes in and of itself.
However, at the present time, there is already such an informal agreement and House Rule which provides such requirements. So what has Congress done?
They continue making end runs around this Rule and instead "liberally" again translate the Constitution by using two introductory words as the stated basis for such legislation - the phantom "general welfare" clause.
Which is really no clause at all and simply a preface stated in the Preamble to our Constitution in order to state the "intent" of the contractual nature of the Constitution and it's purpose, and also which is used again as an introductory preface to the outlined duties and functions of Congress as contained with Article I, Section 8.
In fact, James Madison, the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution" had this to say about the purported "general welfare" clause:
"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Office of the Presidency
"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
~James Madison
It continues to astound me how the progressive movement in this country (the ones who are progressing it toward global socialism, whose members span both sides of the aisle) have such a basic aversion to now the mere word "conservative" after the travesties of the Bush Administration. In point of fact, according to the founder's ex-President Bush was anything but a "conservative" in the true sense of the word.
A "conservative" merely is one who believes in "conserving" the Constitution as it is written, with the intent and purpose for each provision in mind according to their writings, and within a framework of a knowledge of basic American history. To a "conservative American" the Constitution is nothing more than a contract between the federal and state governments, and it's people. According to the common law at then and now according to legal doctrine, a contract is to be interpreted according to the "common usage" language contained within it, until the contract is amended by the agreement of all parties to the contract as outlined within the contract itself.
It is interesting to note that the "progressive movement" in this country consider the Constitution "archaic," and not suitable to the times in which we live, nor the added dangers which we face in the 21st Century.
I would have to disagree with that analysis. In point of fact, the founder's actually faced far more dangers, with far fewer resources than we have today. Those small 13 colonies had an entire Eastern Seaboard to protect and defend, with nothing but canons and musket. There was no running water, or toilets to speak of , so faced numerous diseases and ecological problems that we can only imagine. Although trials were held relatively quickly in the cities for criminal offenses (the "due process" and "speedy trial" provisions, since rooting out truth was better served if justice was handed out swiftly for all), the offenders charged with capital offenses remained in jail until trial, by and large. There was no DNA testing then nor plea bargains, and due to the harshness of the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt meant clear physical evidence, untainted by the media exposure some of today's high profile crimes receive which has resulted in higher costs due to tainted jury pools) few "political" convictions were made.
The judiciary used the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority, and gave secondary consideration to "judge made law," from other states or jurisdictions. Cases did not continue for year upon year, and since all cases in civil and criminal law in which there was a clear victim were heard by juries, one appeal usually was all that was granted in the event new evidence unheard by the jury was discovered.
The laws which were passed by Congress and signed by the President consisted of few pages, and all were well versed in our Constitution and their oaths of office to it -an oath that also supersedes the "will" of even the majority of the citizenry those 535 members felt any legislation was in violation of it. The Supreme Court was the "court of last resort" for all civil matters involving the citizenry on Constitutional issues, and were not given any real power with respect to "making law," simply "interpreting the Law" using the common usage language within it.
Marbury v. Madison is the case in which the judiciary then violated the Constitution in giving themselves more power to than it was ever intended to have. "Judicial review" of legislation then became the ultimate test for application and Constitutional of state or federal legislation, and the powers of the juries have progressively been eradicated ever since. The most basic problem as has been the assumption that Supreme Court rulings carry "precedent" throughout the states, when the Supreme's were merely intended to have limited juridiction over certain issues, and appellate jurisdiction over others, and their "findings" actually only applicable to the "case at bar," or according to the actual facts in the case before it.
Thus, the "liberal" movement was born within a few short years of it's signing. To be a "liberal" actually meant that the Constitution was a "living" document and the language could be twisted, turned and redefined for political purposes or public opinion. Throughout our remaining history, there have been exceptional Judges on the Supreme Court who actually understood exactly why those checks and balances were written the way that they were, but they have been few and far between.
Barack Obama took an oath not once but twice which states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The provisions, duties and limits on the Office of the Presidency can be found in Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4 which state:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Bush Administration had a well reported aversion to the Constitution and all it stood for and the limits of office contained within it, he may have ran on one or two conservative issues, but was fundamentally a liberal and globalist subscribing to the U.N. and it's governance clearly more than our own. Mr. Obama ran as an agent for "change" and as a Harvard educated "Constitutional lawyer." Granted, Harvard is a well known liberal institution of higher learning, especially with respect to the law and our Constitution, more along the lines of Oxford in England (the country which we fought a war to escape their form of government, although several of our Supreme Court justices obtained their educations outside the U.S.).
The President is supposed to be ready on Day One with at least a fundamental knowledge of the limits of his office, and his oath to "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Somehow, knowing that the future President was a Constitutional lawyer, I had hoped that the "change" Mr. Obama represented would be a "change" in the fundamental way he approached his role and with a better understanding of the allegiance he owed in the execution of his duties.
Unfortunately I, and many other Constitution believing Americans, were gravely disappointed. It does appear that now that this spending package has unconstitutionally been signed into law, Harvard should be one of the first to receive some of that debt so that maybe, just maybe, our children will get some benefit out of this travesty, along with the debt.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
~James Madison
It continues to astound me how the progressive movement in this country (the ones who are progressing it toward global socialism, whose members span both sides of the aisle) have such a basic aversion to now the mere word "conservative" after the travesties of the Bush Administration. In point of fact, according to the founder's ex-President Bush was anything but a "conservative" in the true sense of the word.
A "conservative" merely is one who believes in "conserving" the Constitution as it is written, with the intent and purpose for each provision in mind according to their writings, and within a framework of a knowledge of basic American history. To a "conservative American" the Constitution is nothing more than a contract between the federal and state governments, and it's people. According to the common law at then and now according to legal doctrine, a contract is to be interpreted according to the "common usage" language contained within it, until the contract is amended by the agreement of all parties to the contract as outlined within the contract itself.
It is interesting to note that the "progressive movement" in this country consider the Constitution "archaic," and not suitable to the times in which we live, nor the added dangers which we face in the 21st Century.
I would have to disagree with that analysis. In point of fact, the founder's actually faced far more dangers, with far fewer resources than we have today. Those small 13 colonies had an entire Eastern Seaboard to protect and defend, with nothing but canons and musket. There was no running water, or toilets to speak of , so faced numerous diseases and ecological problems that we can only imagine. Although trials were held relatively quickly in the cities for criminal offenses (the "due process" and "speedy trial" provisions, since rooting out truth was better served if justice was handed out swiftly for all), the offenders charged with capital offenses remained in jail until trial, by and large. There was no DNA testing then nor plea bargains, and due to the harshness of the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt meant clear physical evidence, untainted by the media exposure some of today's high profile crimes receive which has resulted in higher costs due to tainted jury pools) few "political" convictions were made.
The judiciary used the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority, and gave secondary consideration to "judge made law," from other states or jurisdictions. Cases did not continue for year upon year, and since all cases in civil and criminal law in which there was a clear victim were heard by juries, one appeal usually was all that was granted in the event new evidence unheard by the jury was discovered.
The laws which were passed by Congress and signed by the President consisted of few pages, and all were well versed in our Constitution and their oaths of office to it -an oath that also supersedes the "will" of even the majority of the citizenry those 535 members felt any legislation was in violation of it. The Supreme Court was the "court of last resort" for all civil matters involving the citizenry on Constitutional issues, and were not given any real power with respect to "making law," simply "interpreting the Law" using the common usage language within it.
Marbury v. Madison is the case in which the judiciary then violated the Constitution in giving themselves more power to than it was ever intended to have. "Judicial review" of legislation then became the ultimate test for application and Constitutional of state or federal legislation, and the powers of the juries have progressively been eradicated ever since. The most basic problem as has been the assumption that Supreme Court rulings carry "precedent" throughout the states, when the Supreme's were merely intended to have limited juridiction over certain issues, and appellate jurisdiction over others, and their "findings" actually only applicable to the "case at bar," or according to the actual facts in the case before it.
Thus, the "liberal" movement was born within a few short years of it's signing. To be a "liberal" actually meant that the Constitution was a "living" document and the language could be twisted, turned and redefined for political purposes or public opinion. Throughout our remaining history, there have been exceptional Judges on the Supreme Court who actually understood exactly why those checks and balances were written the way that they were, but they have been few and far between.
Barack Obama took an oath not once but twice which states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The provisions, duties and limits on the Office of the Presidency can be found in Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4 which state:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Bush Administration had a well reported aversion to the Constitution and all it stood for and the limits of office contained within it, he may have ran on one or two conservative issues, but was fundamentally a liberal and globalist subscribing to the U.N. and it's governance clearly more than our own. Mr. Obama ran as an agent for "change" and as a Harvard educated "Constitutional lawyer." Granted, Harvard is a well known liberal institution of higher learning, especially with respect to the law and our Constitution, more along the lines of Oxford in England (the country which we fought a war to escape their form of government, although several of our Supreme Court justices obtained their educations outside the U.S.).
The President is supposed to be ready on Day One with at least a fundamental knowledge of the limits of his office, and his oath to "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Somehow, knowing that the future President was a Constitutional lawyer, I had hoped that the "change" Mr. Obama represented would be a "change" in the fundamental way he approached his role and with a better understanding of the allegiance he owed in the execution of his duties.
Unfortunately I, and many other Constitution believing Americans, were gravely disappointed. It does appear that now that this spending package has unconstitutionally been signed into law, Harvard should be one of the first to receive some of that debt so that maybe, just maybe, our children will get some benefit out of this travesty, along with the debt.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Myth of Executive Privilege
It been interesting to continue to read and hear the propaganda again being spewed in the interviews that have been given by Karl Rove (the "Architect") in his refusal to submit to a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee in order to answer some questions with respect to his performance in the Bush Administration.
Mr. Rove has been credited with being the architect of Mr. Bush's rise to the presidency, sort of a private marketing and PR agent. After leaving the employ of the White House, he has since been snared by Rupert Murdoch as a Fox News Analyst in order to work his architectural magic and PR skills for Fox now on the American people in a much greater forum with a little longer sound bites as an "expert" for the national news media.
An expert in what I haven't a clue, since the Bush Administration has been the most unpopular in my memory, far surpassing that other erstwhile Republican(?), Richard Nixon.
Search and search as I may within our U.S. Constitution nowhere does it indicate that there is such an animal as 'Executive Privilege," nor "sovereign immunity" (that was the British invention that caused the Revolution to begin with - the sovereign's tyranny and governing without accountability of the first King George).
Mr. Rove, it appears, has now since abandoned the executive privilege argument, and now in order to put another spin on it, has used as his defense the "separation of powers" doctrine. Unfortunately, this one doesn't fly either, since the "separation of powers" doctrine does only apply to the President himself (and possibly his high level cabinet members) but certainly not to an architect, and only applies to the separation of powers and duties, not lack of accountability to the other branches for them, or to the people.
Fox media representatives, including Bill O'Reilly, that "no spin" spinner, of course, affirmed in his commentary this illusion for his co-compatriot and fellow Fox employee. I think Mr. Rove does need to review the relevant founder's letters and documents regarding the "checks and balances" functions of our government, which is what Congress and the legislature is to be for the Executive Office. The "check" when the President or any of his advisors or appointees steps out of "Constitutional" line, so all stays "in balance."
In fact, as the founder's intended the "separation of powers," it was in reference to the fact that each branch of the government had "separate" and distinct "enumerated powers" as contained within the Constitution itself. However, each of those branches were accountable not just to each other, but also to the American people (i.e., the right to petition contained in the Bill of Rights).
The impeachment provisions were included as a "check" on the President by the Congress and judiciary. The provisions for LIMITED protection from "arrest" of Congressional members was only extended to times when Congress was in session and votes were being taken (and due to acknowleding their role, being constrained to their enumerated powers, Congress was not in session the majority of the entire year as it is now). The founder's didn't extend "civil" or criminal protections for their "acts or omissions," rightly determining that "civil servants" of the people also should be held to the same and higher standards than those whom they governed.
These provisions have been utilized selectively and minimally in the past for political reasons, but on the scale of the abridgment of the Constitution that are going on now at all levels, it appears to most Americans we've got not only a President, but an entire Congress and Supreme Court that are doing their own thing with actual disdain for the entire framework of our country in their progressive abridgments and politicization of our national institutions.
Even the Supreme Court was to be held "accountable" for their decisions, with the provision that they were to be removed "when not in good behavior." In 1776 "good behavior" was intended and interpreted to mean any form of criminal conduct and behavior (including abridging also their Constitutional limits), not simply being drunk and disorderly.
While the Supreme Court has interpretative powers, its interpretative ability was limited to the clear language contained within it. Not rewriting or amending it, since there is a process for amendment, and the Supreme Court is not a part of that process. Thus, "public use" means just that "public use," and not "public purpose" as in the recent Kelo decision. And "the right to privacy" was intended to protect individuals from unlawful search and seizures, and security of their homes and properties primarily (as violated by much of the provisions of the Patriot Act), not as so broadly defined by the Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case (a case in which they even overstepped their jurisdictional boundaries, since it was an appeal of a case between two citizens, and not between a citizen and the state).
But it does appear fairly clear that with respect to the Rove refusal, his claim of "sovereign immunity" and "separation of powers" as "legal" in response to a Congressional subpoena, how contemptuous many on the Hill have become to our true form of government, and how suspect Mr. Rove's continued FOX analysis should be taken by the American people for any contributions he should make in his new media "analyst" role.
The "spins" both all the major networks, especially the cable networks, are nothing more than a ratings game with little fact to the reporting, and ex-teachers, lawyers and erstwhile architects are the ones now doing the spin doctoring.
Forget the federal and state goals regarding improving our education system and leaving them in charge, since with such propaganda it does makes you wonder about both the present and future brainwashing of the next generation. Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove and cable news style of educating I think the youth of this country could do without. You pay for this abuse people.
I hope maybe CNN or one of the other news networks will take this up with Mr. Rove in greater detail, on just what legal grounds he has in his beliefs on executive privilege, sovereign immunity, and separation of powers with respect to HIS position and protection, and just where that wording is in our Constitution?
But as now a Faux paid analyst with his new job spin doctoring on O'Reilly for the New Republican/Globalist/corporate communista cause (as opposed to the true Constitutional Conservatives) taking up most of his time, won't hold my breath. And also somewhat certain that due to the decline now in the integrity of most mass media professionals and journalistic reporting on both sides of the aisles, my equilibrium could handle the news bites.
Mr. Rove has been credited with being the architect of Mr. Bush's rise to the presidency, sort of a private marketing and PR agent. After leaving the employ of the White House, he has since been snared by Rupert Murdoch as a Fox News Analyst in order to work his architectural magic and PR skills for Fox now on the American people in a much greater forum with a little longer sound bites as an "expert" for the national news media.
An expert in what I haven't a clue, since the Bush Administration has been the most unpopular in my memory, far surpassing that other erstwhile Republican(?), Richard Nixon.
Search and search as I may within our U.S. Constitution nowhere does it indicate that there is such an animal as 'Executive Privilege," nor "sovereign immunity" (that was the British invention that caused the Revolution to begin with - the sovereign's tyranny and governing without accountability of the first King George).
Mr. Rove, it appears, has now since abandoned the executive privilege argument, and now in order to put another spin on it, has used as his defense the "separation of powers" doctrine. Unfortunately, this one doesn't fly either, since the "separation of powers" doctrine does only apply to the President himself (and possibly his high level cabinet members) but certainly not to an architect, and only applies to the separation of powers and duties, not lack of accountability to the other branches for them, or to the people.
Fox media representatives, including Bill O'Reilly, that "no spin" spinner, of course, affirmed in his commentary this illusion for his co-compatriot and fellow Fox employee. I think Mr. Rove does need to review the relevant founder's letters and documents regarding the "checks and balances" functions of our government, which is what Congress and the legislature is to be for the Executive Office. The "check" when the President or any of his advisors or appointees steps out of "Constitutional" line, so all stays "in balance."
In fact, as the founder's intended the "separation of powers," it was in reference to the fact that each branch of the government had "separate" and distinct "enumerated powers" as contained within the Constitution itself. However, each of those branches were accountable not just to each other, but also to the American people (i.e., the right to petition contained in the Bill of Rights).
The impeachment provisions were included as a "check" on the President by the Congress and judiciary. The provisions for LIMITED protection from "arrest" of Congressional members was only extended to times when Congress was in session and votes were being taken (and due to acknowleding their role, being constrained to their enumerated powers, Congress was not in session the majority of the entire year as it is now). The founder's didn't extend "civil" or criminal protections for their "acts or omissions," rightly determining that "civil servants" of the people also should be held to the same and higher standards than those whom they governed.
These provisions have been utilized selectively and minimally in the past for political reasons, but on the scale of the abridgment of the Constitution that are going on now at all levels, it appears to most Americans we've got not only a President, but an entire Congress and Supreme Court that are doing their own thing with actual disdain for the entire framework of our country in their progressive abridgments and politicization of our national institutions.
Even the Supreme Court was to be held "accountable" for their decisions, with the provision that they were to be removed "when not in good behavior." In 1776 "good behavior" was intended and interpreted to mean any form of criminal conduct and behavior (including abridging also their Constitutional limits), not simply being drunk and disorderly.
While the Supreme Court has interpretative powers, its interpretative ability was limited to the clear language contained within it. Not rewriting or amending it, since there is a process for amendment, and the Supreme Court is not a part of that process. Thus, "public use" means just that "public use," and not "public purpose" as in the recent Kelo decision. And "the right to privacy" was intended to protect individuals from unlawful search and seizures, and security of their homes and properties primarily (as violated by much of the provisions of the Patriot Act), not as so broadly defined by the Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case (a case in which they even overstepped their jurisdictional boundaries, since it was an appeal of a case between two citizens, and not between a citizen and the state).
But it does appear fairly clear that with respect to the Rove refusal, his claim of "sovereign immunity" and "separation of powers" as "legal" in response to a Congressional subpoena, how contemptuous many on the Hill have become to our true form of government, and how suspect Mr. Rove's continued FOX analysis should be taken by the American people for any contributions he should make in his new media "analyst" role.
The "spins" both all the major networks, especially the cable networks, are nothing more than a ratings game with little fact to the reporting, and ex-teachers, lawyers and erstwhile architects are the ones now doing the spin doctoring.
Forget the federal and state goals regarding improving our education system and leaving them in charge, since with such propaganda it does makes you wonder about both the present and future brainwashing of the next generation. Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove and cable news style of educating I think the youth of this country could do without. You pay for this abuse people.
I hope maybe CNN or one of the other news networks will take this up with Mr. Rove in greater detail, on just what legal grounds he has in his beliefs on executive privilege, sovereign immunity, and separation of powers with respect to HIS position and protection, and just where that wording is in our Constitution?
But as now a Faux paid analyst with his new job spin doctoring on O'Reilly for the New Republican/Globalist/corporate communista cause (as opposed to the true Constitutional Conservatives) taking up most of his time, won't hold my breath. And also somewhat certain that due to the decline now in the integrity of most mass media professionals and journalistic reporting on both sides of the aisles, my equilibrium could handle the news bites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
