Fear of Consequences

Post 337

Alright.
Let’s assume that Congress decides to put on its rightful and manly pants. It sees the light, recognizes the danger of a majority of self-autonomous members in a branch of government, and begins the Divorce procedure by initiating impeachment.
That door once opened at this point in the fractured relationship is a door that swings very wide indeed. It takes little early exploration to realize that once begun, it would bring the whole house of cards down on top of us.
Who, at this point, has clean hands?
Continuing the exploration of our current example of the still-future Woman and the Beast that carries her, let’s go deeper into the complex problem in this house of cards as the hurricane of ill-wind approaches.
* * *

The Judicial Liberation:
IF, by investigation through the impeachment process, Congress concludes that indeed these five majority Justices of the Supreme Court have taken upon themselves the Power to overrule Congress by failing to declare the sense of the law and have rather shown a disposition to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence having become the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body; then Mr. Hamilton’s argument in The Federalist Paper No. 78 has proven fulfilled to the very letter as I have copied here, transposing only the tense from prophetic future to fulfilled past.
But while Mr. Hamilton’s argument was a point of improbability because of Congresses’ last-word Power of Impeachment to insure this could never happen, even a blind dog can see today that this Power has long been unapplied and the result is a significant recent history of our Superior Courts doing exactly what the power of impeachment was to prevent.
Today, any special-interest group being shut down by the State Courts per the constitutional application of the law (according to Article X), can simply run to the Superior Courts for a quick overruling reversal which utterly destroys the “rule by self-elected representation” form of governance that the States were ensured and guaranteed by the Constitution to have (Article IV, section 4).
In fact, we are even now watching the last independent Power of the States being drained away by the Federal Courts like Hollywood vampires sucking the life from helpless damsels in distress, converting those damsels into likewise powerful vampires of the living dead. Prayerless schools, Godless governing institutions, Silenced religion, Marriage of Sodomites, Capitol Punishment denial, Right to Death, Rights for Illegal Aliens, Right to murder your unborn, Forced Earth-worship by Eco-Everything; the list goes on and on. Each of these and more are not governance by Legislation but by the will of the Judiciary. The Federal Judicial branch has become a shameless monster of limitless Power and control, even to the usurping of any State Court ruling that the Supreme Court doesn’t like. The weakest branch has effectively become America’s new rule by Oligarchy, So why does Congress do nothing?

I will here address two different reasons.

First, let’s lightly contemplate the emotional angle:
Yes, Congress has the power of impeachment. But if they feel compelled by right to use the might and impeach the wrongdoers for the duration sake of the more perfect Union, we now have up to five empty seats that need to be filled all at once. Who has the power to fills those seats? The President. Who is the acting President? Mr. Obama the lawless, the self-proclaimed transformer of foundations, the man who says the Constitution is a flawed and outdated document of irrelevance.
If such a man is allowed to select five Supreme Court Justices, like the two he has already seated, suddenly America gets an unprecedented judicial tsunami driven by a single individual, that lasts, not only for the remainder of his presidency, but for a lifetime -- or until likewise impeached for misbehavior.

How many more Justices do you impeach before you are seen by the public as a trigger-happy self-serving Tyrant-- or until Justices are terrorized into becoming Congresses’ yes men just to keep their seats-- which also makes you a Tyrant? Does this “kill them all” manly approach actually fix anything at this point in the problem? Decidedly not-- even though it may make you feel better for having done something; In fact it seems to make matters infinitely worse.

Next, let’s contemplate the legal angle (and you have no idea how hard I struggle to keep this short by excluding so much more needed information):

The Limitation of Trumping Power:
If Congress could impeach anybody in another branch that disagreed with them, then the branches wouldn’t actually be independent and therefore wouldn’t be the functional checks and balances that they were designed to be. Independent function of the branches is therefore imperative, yet clearly the function of these branches are to have Powerful influence on the other branches in ways such as money, impeachment, application, declaring void, veto, refusal to act, etc. So, how does this work?
Let’s let Mr. Hamilton explain it as I repeat his quote:

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

In summary; while the branches are independent in their role and operation, their separated function is to have significant affect on the constitutional conformity of the other branches. Example: The Judicial branch cannot have a say in what the Legislative branch does or does not enact into law, but it does have the power to declare void anything they pass that does not conform to the boundaries that the Constitution has specified. If the Judicial branch did not have this Power, the Legislature would have no functional restraint from violating the Constitution and enslaving the people by their lawless law.
OK, let’s continue:

“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

In summary: It might appear that, if you have the power to declare something void that the other branch has passed, that power makes your branch superior to the other branch. How does this trumping power of the Judiciary not make the Legislators functionally irrelevant? How is this the independence of branches? and especially; How does this great trumping-power over the legislation fit with the idea that the Judicial branch is the weakest and least powerful of the branches?
This is where the answer gets powerfully interesting and important to our issue:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

In today’s hindsight fulfillment of this warning this needs no explaining, but I wanted to pause here just to emphasize the importance of this concept. In short: It is a primarily foundational principle that declares the hired has no authority in its employment that the employer does not give it. If this principle is denied then the employee would have unlimited power even to the usurping destruction of the employer and the taking of all he has and is, the servant does not formally conquer the master; he becomes the master. Hamilton worded it so well that even my attempt to re-phrase it diminishes his point. Please read it again in his own words.
Now let’s continue:

“If it be (wrongly) said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers[,] and the construction (i.e. the legislation that) they put upon them (i.e. the other branches) is conclusive upon the other departments[,] it may be answered (to correct this misconception) that this cannot be the natural presumption where it is not to be (i.e. it cannot rightly be) collected from any particular provision in the Constitution.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

While Mr. Hamilton so wonderfully worded the previous paragraph, this one is quite difficult to understand without help. And while the next paragraph is unbroken in continuation, I feel it important to pause here to try to make sense of this part.
Simply said: Don’t think that the legislature has the self-regulating power to write whatever law they like, including obligations imposed on the other branches, and then claim it is constitutional because they wrote it, and therefore constitutionally binding. Such an idea is so wholly unconstitutional by completely missing from the text, that to come to this conclusion is unnatural and corruption. Feel free to read his phrasing again, here copied without all my aids:

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers and the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments it may be answered that this cannot be the natural presumption where it is not to be collected from any particular provision in the Constitution.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

Now let’s continue with his thought:

It is not otherwise to be supposed (i.e. Do not make the other faulty supposition) that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the [legislators] within the limits assigned to their authority.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

We began this discussion in the last Post, talking about the willful JUDICIAL branch that needed to be reigned-in by the authorized impeaching power of the Legislative branch, but now, here, we are reading these quotes and talking about the same power in the reverse, but without the similar power of impeachment.
The legislators cannot be allowed by their own will to breach the bounds or principles or even the manifest tenor (the clear spirit) of the Constitution, lest the other branches and subsequently the people, become enslaved; one of the very things the LIMITED Constitution was established to prevent.
So how does the weak judicial branch have the power to ensure that the legislative branch does not breach the bounds, if the legislative branch has the ensuring power to impeach the judicial for breach?
This unique and exclusive power is wholly a matter of compliance to the Greater Unimpeachable Law that grants all said powers, and not a matter of arguing greater powers between the branches. This is a gender thing in Type: "Dear husband of mine, while I love you and obey you because God gave you the right of making the rules of conduct in this family, I cannot do, nor make the children do, what you have demanded, because God, the Higher Power, has declared what you demand to be unlawful. Such a demand is outside of your scope of authority.”

So just as the Judicial branch cannot be allowed to breach their constitutional bounds by the restraining power of the legislators; that same body of legislators cannot likewise be allowed by their own will to enact laws that the Constitution forbids and that the people who put them there do not desire. This trumping-power only extends to the area of Constitutional breach. this is because this trumping power is simply referring back to the Constitution as the source of power; it is the Constitution that establishes the rule of all government, and the trumping power therefore does not reside in the branch that wields it but in the Constitution itself.

So, because of this principle of otherwise independent powers, the Congress cannot interfere in the opinions of the Judiciary, even if they don’t like it… SO LONG AS that opinion conforms to the bounds of the Constitution. There are few greater harms that our government can do to the government itself than to allow one branch the power of will over the other branches (Matthew 12:25). The manly Legislators, perhaps in great fear of being held accountable to arguably the most important tenant of the Constitutional limitations of power, are excessively careful not to extend their will over the activity of the other branches. This is one reason why the Supreme Court has been allowed to progressively become more powerful without restraint. This lack of restraint has enabled the Court to imagine itself autonomous and immune. It believes itself to be emancipated, and by its unsuppressed successful ill conduct since 1963, it seems that they are right.
* * *

Unclean Hands of Legislative Liberation:
With this new understanding of limited powers, we now see the Judicial branch likewise failing to hold the Legislative branch accountable for breach. I bring this quote back yet again:

It is not otherwise to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the later within the limits assigned to their authority.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

Do you remember voting down Hillary Care decisively… numerous times? Remember voting down Obama Care too? Yet here is Nancy Peloci-- Speaker of the House-- regarding getting this pet bill passed in spite of mass outcry and significant opposition by both the population and almost the entire “other half” of Congress:

In defending her earlier statement: ‘We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it,’ she said to an interviewer: “However, I stand by what I said there; ‘When people see what is in the bill they will like it,’ -- and they will. And so while there is a lot of hoopty-do and adu’… I’m saying; it took a great deal for us to pass this bill, I said that if we go up to the gate and the gate is locked we will unlock the gate, if we can’t do that we will climb the fence, if the fence is too high we will pole-vault in, if we can’t do that we will helicopter in, but we will get it done” - Meet The Press- Nancy Peloci Defends Statement (http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=youtube+peloci+pass+bill+to+find+out+whats+in+it).
John 10:1 speaks to this mentality very strongly.

How does this unstoppable drive to force upon the people what they do not want, conform to the intent or function of the constitutional limitations we are here discussing? Are we to conclude that Madam Peloci understood that the people-- at the least her own constituents-- were demanding any kind of ObamaCare legislation? Let’s see:

In the same quoted interview as above, the Meet The Press interviewer said to her: “…and you argued at the time, you said; look, there’s a lot of controversy around this, it’s politically hot, and the people don’t understand the good things that are in it. But then you said this in March of 2010, watch;” and he played the infamous “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it” clip that she then defended above (*1).

It seems unquestionably clear that Madam Peloci’s opinion was that the Progressive (dare I say Communist? *2) Legislators would do any and everything in their power to force this bill into law against all opposition-- which was plentiful-- with the supposed perspective that the people would retroactively like what they got after they got it, even though they were fighting it now. So just who’s will enacted that legislation; the people’s? And where then was the Judicial branch in VOIDING the law created by such a clearly unconstitutional method of legislation? The function of the Courts is the very constitutional judge that Mr. Hamilton mentioned was the only deterrent for JUST SUCH THINGS.

How much confidence then can the people have in the wisdom of Congress to keep the other two branches from breach, when after giving to us the laws that make it illegal to; grow home gardens, store food, collect rainwater, etc., conclude with the very Speaker of the House declaring openly to Congress that “we have to pass this [controversial] bill so we can find out what’s in it,” and Congress does not react in immediate and complete rejection of the idea as pure and unadulterated evidence of public insanity? Such an irresponsible statement by any leader or ruler is sheer lunacy and an immediate obligation of removal from office on grounds of incompetence at the least. Yet this has become standard fair in Congress today as their heads don’t even jerk up from their Angry Birds when they hear it.
So, Where is our Supreme Court that is supposed to protect the people from these “servant becoming master” High Crimes against the people by declaring such unwanted legislations void due to violations of the constitutional parameters of limitations?

But what is hardly secondary to this growing list of insanities by “lead Congress persons” is the obvious question; If Congress hasn’t read the bill, then who wrote it? and Why is Congress even contemplating passing bills that they didn’t write? How can they expect us to believe they know the will of their constituents-- as required by the Constitutionality of their job-- if they pass without reading, bills that they didn’t write? JUST WHO IS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY of the governed? It clearly is not Congress, and it’s not the American people through Congress.
Just as a reminder; Surrendering our nation to unconstitutional rulers without being conquered through war is a case of HIGH TREASON against the United States of America and her people. Can it be explained that this is not the case here? It is growing ever significantly less likely with examples such as that presented by Ammon Bundy regarding the growing “Nancy Peloci Method” now being used by many States to propose legislation (*3).

There is a whole lot more to be said on the topic, and Mr. Hamilton addressed it in Federalist No. 78-85, but there comes a time when more information just grid-locks the forward momentum by derailing the main point. So let’s move on to the Executive problem and bring this all together.
* * *

The Executive Liberation Movement - it’s a gender thing:
While there is a near limitless volume of details regarding the High Crimes of the Executive branch today, we have already covered enough in previous Posts to provide the daily increasing substance for the argument. The acting President seems to believe that he is an unstoppable superpower, a king over the American people and unaccountable to Congress on the basis of his constitutionally independent role. And it seems quite evident that Congress agrees.
I am baffled at the apparent Legislative opinion that seems to believe the Constitution has granted the President power to write law, even against their approval-- as if that last part matters to the point-- and when the President threatens congress with his silly executive pen of virtually no legislative power, they ask; "What can Congress do?"
How do you make your wife do what you say if she decides she is not going to do it? How do you stop her from doing what you have strictly forbidden?
Among the very few, let’s look at the singular effort of one earnest Representative in this area of concern:

U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy before Congress:
“Thank you Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment as colleagues. Not as Republicans or Democrats, not as members of the majority or the minority; but as colleagues who are blessed to serve in the United States House of Representatives: The people’s house, with all their tradition, with all the history, with all the laws that have been passed, with all the lives that have been impacted. I want us to talk as colleagues, because our foundational document gave us, as the House, unique powers and responsibilities. We run every two years because they intended for us to be closest to the people. The President was given different duties and powers. The President was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. So my question Mr. Speaker, is what does that mean to you; ‘that the laws be faithfully….executed’?
We know the president can veto a bill for any reason, or no reason. We know the President can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statute-- even one that he signs into law. We know the President can issue pardons for violation of the very laws that we pass. And we know that the President has prosecutorial discretion as evidenced and used through his U.S. attorneys. Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power. What are we to do when that amount of power is not enough? What are we to do when this President, or any President, decides to selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of that law? What do we do, Mr. Speaker, regardless of motivation when a President nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute The Law? How do we explain waivers and exemptions and delays in a bill passed by congress and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court? How do we explain away a refusal to enforce mandatory minimums that were passed by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court? And why pursue, Mr. Speaker, immigration reform if Presidents can turn off the very provisions that we pass?--
You know, in the Oath that brand new citizens take, it contains six different references to the law. If it’s good enough for us to ask brand new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the President do the same?--
If a President… [paused by enthusiastic applause of the House]... If a President can change some laws, can he change all laws? Can he change Election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws under your theory that he actually has to enforce?
What is our recourse Mr. Speaker? What is our remedy? Some would argue the Framers gave us the power of the purse and the power of impeachment, but Mr. Speaker, those are punishments, those are not remedies. What is the remedy if we want the Executive to ENFORCE - OUR - WORK?

This [proposed] bill simply gives us standing when our votes are nullified. This [proposed] bill allows us to petition the Judicial branch for an order requiring the Executive branch to faithfully execute the law.
Mr. Speaker, we are not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law. Maybe we would be more respected if we had a firmly rooted expectation that when we pass something as law it be treated as law. Maybe we would be more respected if we put down party labels and a desire to keep, or retain, or acquire gavels, and [instead] picked up the history, the tradition, and the honor of this; the People’s House.
Mr. Speaker, the House does not exist to pass suggestions. We do not exist to pass ideas. We make LAW. And while you are free to stand and clap when any President comes into this hallowed chamber and promises ‘to do it with our without you’, I will NEVER stand and clap when any president-- no matter whether he is your party or mine-- promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. WE - MAKE - LAW. [standing ovation of the House].” - transcribed from video, SC R- Tray Gowdy, before the U.S. House, March 13, 2014, Youtube Gowdy Remedy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NW70RXMfUM).

The aforementioned bill called “Enforce the Law Act” was passed by a vote of 233-181. It is a bill that would authorize the House or Senate to sue the executive branch for not enforcing law.
* * *

Evaluation:
This rousing delivery is immediately received as a very refreshing, sadly unusual, and an enthusiastically supportable speech that every conservative can get behind with both hands and applaud in earnest as a step forward to end foundational corruption in the Highest Executive seat. Go Gowdy!

But my question is this; If a President, who perpetually and routinely making the Congress a constitutional anomaly by failing to faithfully execute the office of President on several fronts, is not a President worthy of and requiring the punishment of impeachment; then what act by a President would be? What kind of ill behavior did our founders have in mind when they gave Congress the power of impeachment?

Maybe Congress would be respected, if they would use their obligatorily power designed for just such a situation, instead of appealing to its other half to enact yet more laws to ask another branch to do what Congress already has the law and power to do but refuses to use.
According to Mr. Gowdey’s previous speech (http://www.westernjournalism.com/trey-gowdy-house-pass-suggestions-make-law/), it is unquestionably clear that this President does not need to be educated, corrected, informed, pressured, coerced… or even forced, to do what his Job requires him to do; he needs to be removed for intentional failure on a fundamental level, and that removal should be done in the most aggressive way available by the law. This President does not need to be remedied; he needs to be punished, and THAT is the purpose of granting you the power of impeachment!
It’s yours to do.

But it’s quite clear that Mr. Gowdey and his colleagues would rather continue in a newly formal adversarial relationship with “their better half” by creating the means of dragging their spouse to court and getting the Judge to demand that she obey, rather than to end the relationship in a nasty divorce and try again with a different person. Why?
Why would Congress be so willing to endure the unendurable when they have every right to end it decisively? The answer has many itemized components but I offer the emotional component first: Have you seen the lawful replacement options? The Vice President is no catch to write home about.

“…all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed” - U.S. Declaration of Independence.
* * * * * * *

(*1) In Nancy Peloci’s Own Words:
“We’re very…uhm…You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill; ‘what are the items?’ but I don’t know if you have heard, that it is a legislation, for the future. Not just about Healthcare for America but about a healthier America. Where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for, or a out-of-pocket, [illegible], prevention, prevention, prevention, it’s about diet not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting, but, we have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” - Transcribed from video, Nancy Peloci, at the March 9, 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties in regard to the Healthcare Reform bill; Youtube Peloci (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl5UMhqgQ-0).

(*2) The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land… (Property Tax is A GOOD FIRST STEP).
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (CHECK).
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. (Heavy death and inheritance taxes: A VERY GOOD FIRST STEP).
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and “rebels.” [air quotes added]. (Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy Ranch: CHECK).
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank… (CHECK).
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (U.S. Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act: CHECK!).
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State… (Ownership by Bailout, such as the auto industry, lending institutions, etc: CHECK!).
8. Equal obligation of all to work… (Obama has been verbally pushing this mentality of: you can succeed by working hard, a suggestion with heavy undertones of the Nazi work makes free sign hung over the Auschwitz concentration camp gates: (VERY MUCH NOW ON THE WAY).
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country: (The only plank not yet visibly well under way, but found in the "distribution of wealth" concept now being driven like a rail road spike).
10. Free education for all children in public schools… (CHECK).

Remember; somebody secret rather than Congress is now writing our laws that Congress passes in blind obedience. Those laws now give off the stench of raw Communism. The shocking part is that most Americans now think all this is American!
Do you remember in Post 238 “ Nine Times Forgiven” the ten infractions of the Exodus people that tempted God to destroy them? (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/03/nine-times-forgiven.html).
Just how old is America’s Methuselah? ( Post 294 http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-long-can-methuselah-live.html).

(*3) LCB - the Legislative Counsel Bureau (www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/LCB/).
According to Ammon Bundy, NO bill can be presented for vote in the Nevada Legislature without being doctored and sanctioned by the LCB disregarding the will of those that proposed it, and in some cases even fully reversing the original will and intent.
search: Bundy AB408 if you cannot find it here. - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tzBzuhkBrl&feature=youtube).
*