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

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.