Some Democratic Senators Still Not On Board To Restore Habeas Corpus
By Nicole Belle Saturday Jul 14, 2007 9:03pmThat title alone should send shivers down your spine.
It's been almost three weeks since I last wrote about the status of cosponsorship on the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, a bill by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) that would "...restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States." At that point, the legislation had 23 cosponsors -- 22 Democrats and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- and I thought I would check back in today and see who has stepped up to show leadership on this issue since then.
With the addition over the last couple of weeks of Senators Byrd, Carper, Klobuchar, McCaskill, Menendez and Nelson (Bill), there are 28 Democratic Senators, along with Sanders, cosponsoring Specter's S. 185, which could very well come up for a vote next week as an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill. [..]
So I again raise the question: Where are the other Democrats?[..]
The following Democratic Senators have still not signed up to cosponsor the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007:
- Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
- Max Baucus (D-MT)
- Evan Bayh (D-IN)
- Robert Casey (D-PA)
- Kent Conrad (D-ND)
- Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
- Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
- Tim Johnson (D-SD)
- Herb Kohl (D-WI)
- Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
- Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
- Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
- Patty Murray (D-WA)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Mark Pryor (D-AR)
- Jack Reed (D-RI)
- Charles Schumer (D-NY)
- Jon Tester (D-MT)
- James Webb (D-VA)
- Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Again, I put it to you that it lies with us to pierce through the Beltway bubble. Please contact these Democrats (especially if you're in their district) and ask them why they have not gone on record restoring this basic civil (and human) right.
UPDATE: Poster Brendan reminds us that Sen. Tim Johnson is still recuperating from his brain hemorrhage and it would be unfair to castigate his lack of vote on this matter.
Login or Register to post comments.
There was another reference today on HBO's "John from Cincinnati" to 9/11 and the internet. Very interesting how the truth sometimes finds its way into the mainstream media. And these Senators better sign up for this bill, or else we should all work on bringing about a common sense congress, who are socially progressive, and fiscally conservative. Taking control of the U.S. is fun business, and we the people better be the ones doing it. Good lead.
Patty Murray :roll: What a surprise. I'll write, but she doesn't give two shits.
Charles Schumer has stated on local radio around here (Albany, NY), that he will vote for the bill so while not a cosponsor he's on board.
That means that 20 out of 48 Dems in Congress are Neocons.
Is sponsorship the same as voting yes? Does it really matter if they sponsor it or not?
OK, let me rephrase that. Is not sponsoring the same as voting no?
I think you (and Geiger) are reading too much into it. I highly doubt that Schumer and Wyden, if not almost all of those listed, would vote against it. Sponsorship is mostly meaningless.
Although they may not be cosponsors, I'm sure most of them ARE on board and will vote to restore Habeas Corpus.
Sent to Bob Casey.
Hope to get at least a reply of why he does or does not support it.
just because they're not sponsoring the bill doesn't mean they're going to vote against it and it certainly doesn't mean they're against restoring habeua corpus...
Not sponsoring a bill doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that a Senator will vote against it. However, the more sponsors a bill has could add weight to the importance of it.
Schumer is mine too. Since he has publically stated he will vote for the bill....that's good enough for me.
Schumer, Webb, Tester, Wyden, DORGAN??????
WTF?
midnight rambler @ 7:
Yeah, I was going to say the same. Sponsorship just means that a handful of Senators are proposing the bill, and those who don't are not voting a definite "nay".
It's sort of like a large meeting where one person says "I propose blah blah blah", then another person says, "I second it," and someone else says, "I second it", etc. Once the head of the meeting thinks the proposition is significant enough, there is a vote. And there really only needs to be a handful of Senators to sponsor a bill to bring it up for a vote... twenty some-odd Senators sponsoring a bill is pretty huge, actually.
Tim Johnson is still recovering I am quite sure there is an awful lot of things Mr. Johnson has not signed on to. I am sure his office will really appreciate him getting rabid emails when he has not been able to serve for the last 6-8 months.
[You have a point. I've passed your comment along. Thanks for reminding us-Sitemonitor]
If they do not restore Habeas Corpus we are screwed. There are so many things that we as Americans do not have that other civilized nations have. Health care, day care, long vacations, time for parents to be home with newborns, etc. We are probably the least civilized of all the industrial countries. If we do not have the protection of Habeas, we might as well be living in a fascist society - oh,................
Speaking of it when is Pelosi going to lift her block on impeachment proceedings?
L.A. Confidential @ 16:
Cindy Sheehan is going to run against Pelosi.
L.A. Confidential @ 16:
For what it's worth, IMHO, never.
The very fact that this bill is pending is a very sad indication of what has happened to this country since the Presidency was stolen in 2000.
Thank you for listing all the ones that are not yet on board for this. Habeas Corpus is the cornerstone, so to speak of the American Judicial system. It goes against everything and then some for the Chimp and his handlers to truly believe that they can take this away from us.
I plan to post this list everywhere I can think of on the Internet. If these clowns can't or won't get their brains out of their you know where's on their own and start representing us, then in my opinion, it's way overdue time to shame, humiliate, ridicule, whatever, them into doing their job.
"We're crying out to our institutions...but they're bought and paid with corrupt contributuions...some praise the flag yet burn the Constitution...while democracy's in danger of total ruin."
-- from Wackiavelli's "Judgement Day"
I find it quaint and touching that some people still think that elected officials actually represent the public and serve the public interest.
I hope they get a lot of emails to become sponsors. It's depressing
Copy and paste. Thank you C&L and Nicole.
Philosophically, I have a problem with a bill that "restores" something that was not legally taken away: The President could veto this bill and, in effect, "affirm" the Unconstitutional original bill.
I would prefer the DNC keep the original bill in place, but zero-out the funding. let the GOP try to pass an amendment that would add money to the bill. It's illegal for the President to spend money on an unconstitutional act.
Would be better if the Habeas Destruction Act were declared unconstitutional.
Can Congressmen/chicks be recalled?
Congress should earmark this bill with a statute that says any president who attempts a signing statement on this particular bill shall be arrested immediately and detained without trial until the end of the age.
Why ask why they have not gone on record restoring this basic civil (and human) right?
Isn't it fucking obvious, they are for the police state and the reduction of freedom in this country and the people who live in it. We are just cattle to these people. They say they care and all that, but dem and repub alike, most (not quite all) despise us and have sold out to big bizz. They make me sick.
Bic @27--I'm kicking myself right now for not having thought of that. Good idea. Let's get that out to these ones senetors and again remind them(strongly)that they work for us and can be turned out in 08 provided martial law has not been instituted by that time.
They talk about stuff and may even vote for it but they know it will not pass because bush would have to sign it, which he won't. So they are safe BSing everyone that they are for freedom and will sponsor and co-sponsor bills which make them look good and caring.
So even Holy Joe has signed on and these guys are still dragging their feet?
I think the entire point behind this bill is daring Bush to veto it, just to convince people further that he's an idiot.
Of course, we're not the ones that need to be convinced, it's Congress that needs to be convinced that he's an idiot.
Decommission the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and all will be well.
Restoring Habeas Corpus is only 1/3rd of this Unconstitutional Republican Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice with an Ex post Facto Law.
Perhaps this has been discussed and I missed it. The Constitution only allows Congress to deny the writ during rebellions and invasion: When Congress illegally passed this bill, what are the legal consequences for having unlawfully done what is prohibited? I sense this selective Amnesia, as if nothing could be done: Why no prosecutions; why not indictments of Members of Congress; how could this fall under legislative immunity: It's clearly illegal.
I do not like the current "fad" of only allowing people with "Standing" to challenge an illegal bill. This puts the victim-plaintiff in the position to remedy the wrong: Fixing what Congress illegally did. I would prefer if there was some sort of larger mechanism in place which the plaintiff-victim did not have to rely: Something like "vanguard of the Constitution" which strikes this down. Ideally, the President should have done this.
"What would ensure this does not happen again?": There should be an outside mechanism that fixes this: Should not be up to Congress -- which has illegally done something -- to "agree" with that wrong, and self-correct this. Like asking the crook who refuses to admit they have a problem to voluntarily give up their love of money, vice, and other things. There needs to be something with a hammer when the US government -- all three branches -- refuse to enforce the Constitution.
Ideally, there should be a mechanism withing Congress that requires some certification that the bill is lawful, not contrary to the Constitution, and has been reviewed to ensure it is lawful. . . then, if it is deemed lawful and Constitution, the Congress debates the bill and votes on it.
"How on earth does an Unconstitutional Bill like this get rubber stamped; and get enforced?" One would think that the unconstitutional act, once signed, would attach with it some financial consequences for any contracting officer to allow any money to be spent against this Unconstitutional Act. I would encourage a review of the process by which this bill was enacted; what checks there should be to review the bill before it becomes law; and the means to ensure that an illegal bill/act like this is not enforced and automatically denied funds. There need to be some circuit breakers when Congress does something stupid like this. No need for it to take this long to fix what was originally unconstitutional, unenforceable, and clearly not consistent with the Framer's intent.
Mitigating Failures To Do What Should Do: What if, despite its unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges to this Unconstitutional bill? Their inaction does not mean the Act is Constitutional, but the opposite: They have failed to defend the Constitution. Amazing how a group of people -- in Congress, Judiciary, and Executive -- will go along with this momentum, and there's nothing that will stop it. Kind of like the momentum for the illegal war in Iraq.
Untimely Oath of Office Assertion
Very uncomfortable to witness the Supreme Court apparently refusing to challenge this illegal act-bill in a timely manner: Sensing something is wrong with the oath of office -- needs to be some sort of time-based criteria. Waiting since 2001 until now to clean up this mess, on top of the setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems very absurd. Looks like the US was too buy passing illegal bills, rather than monitoring the effectiveness and lawfulness of the existing activity. What a smokescreen: Keep the Congress distracted with "new legislation," and they'll never look at the illegal conduct. Wow, looks like the same GOP strategy is in play on impeachment: "How many more bills do you want Congress to debate and veto; then argue, 'we have no time for impeachment, just time to veto legislation that we're going to ignore anyway'."
Stop focusing on new legislation, but on the illegal conduct relative to the Constitution. Impeach and prosecute the President, VP, and Members of Congress!
Anon @ 25:
They need to repeal the Bill, and while they are at it, repeal the horrible John Warner Act that killed Posse Comatatus, stripped control of the Guard from governors, and allows (in the wording of the bill ) the president to name anyone, even citizens "unlawfull enemy combatants" on a whim, with no justification as well as declaring martial Law. Is is any wonder Bush signed the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) into law in a private signing with only PNAC members and no press present?
WTF? Ron Wyden from Oregon? Is he high?
Fran Taylor @ 32:
Before it gets to the President's desk for his possible veto (evidence of illegal activity on his part: He cannot strike down something that is required: The Constitution); the first issue is whether the GOP Senators are going to filibuster this; or whether they're going to let the Bill out, or block the Conference Committee.
Just when I thought the bill was "ready to go," somehow the GOP figures out a way to block it, and prevent the President from having to sign it or veto it.
Fundamentally, given the GOP minority status, I would like to know how they can block the passage of a restoration bill; but the DNC was not able to block the original illegal bill. Hopefully the DNC is taking notes from the GOP on what the DNC could have done to block to original illegal bill. Indeed, perhaps being naive to think that the DNC is paying attention.
"We've got subpoena power. Now, where to plug in the power to our brains and spines. . ."
MUST SEE VIDEO. Only in America.
Let the nation destruction now under "Democratic Congress" continue...
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=...
Wayne @ 35:
They need to repeal the Bill,
I would be curious to learn: Why are there not automatic provisions to repeal an unconstitutional act of Congress?
Surely, We the People could be able to say, "We refuse to perform any work on that." Or we could declare, "Any US government action to enforce this illegal act, will be dealt with legal consequences: Prosecution of Members of Congress for 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations."
Where's that grand jury indictment against the Members of Congress who fail to repeal this unconstitutional Act?
Ron Wyden is probably one of the most passionate and forthright public servants we have. If he's voting no there is probably a very good reason for it. But as others have said this is just about sponsoring. I'm pretty sure that Ron believes that Habeas Corpus should be restored. The man rocks.
These people should be lining up to sign on. What the hell is wrong with these "representatives"?
It really is time to end this nonsense. We need people in our government who give a shit and will do something.
The past 6 long years have especially brought the message to bear: our system sucks and needs to be changed. We really cannot survive with the way our legislators are chosen (rich, party and media-sponsored hacks).
We the people need to have more power and the ability to hold these alleged representatives accountable.
Man, it DOES send shivers down my spine, and it is outright INCREDIBLE, but entirely too true. We should be rioting in the streets over this one thing alone. I can't believe this is my country anymore. I'd been a registered Democrat for my entire voting life until recently. So much calls for radical action, and even the best people in government are letting this unconstitutional stuff slide. If the people do not rise up to bullhorn these slugs into effectiveness, right away, we are sunk. If we do not make them too scared to keep screwing us like this there just is no hope. Not impeaching * and Fudd is UNCONSTITUTIONAL; not restoring habeas corpus is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This stuff is NOT optional, but they treat it as though it were. ARE WE SO DUMBED DOWN WE CAN'T TELL? What the hell is the problem?
99 @ 42:
My vote: Declare this Government an illegal dictatorship, and refuse to honor any contracts putting this dictatorship into effect.
Just repeal the Military Commissions Act.
Mark Richards @ 41:
There is a way, if congress gets too out of control, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. It takes two-thirds of the states submitting petitions for it, then by the Constitution itself, Congress must call a new constitutional convention. That is Article V of the Constitution.
BaScOmBe @ 44:
Really.....
That is one law I would not trust even a Democrat President ( Hillary comes to mind ) with, much less that meglomaniac Bush. Frankly I am supprised that even the so-called constitutionalist Republicans are not screaming bloody murder over that bill.
Contacted Murray D-Wa. Thanks for the heads up.
jim webb, where have you gone?
[...] from Crooks and Liars: Bob Geiger: It’s been almost three weeks since I last wrote about the status of cosponsorship on [...]
I'm not too surprised to see Wyden's name on there. He and Gordon Smith used to have some pretty nasty smear ads against each other, and it damn near screwed both of them. They've since figured out that they need each other in order to keep their jobs, so they collaborate pretty closely.
Wyden's a great politician as far as local Oregon stuff goes, but he's kind of a tow the line rubber stamping bitch when it comes to the national stuff. Which is a shame. Especially when you think about how close he is to the Foreign Intelligence Committee.
Not too surprised to see Webb on there either.
You guys are spot on. It's ridiculous to even be presenting a defeatable/vetoable bill which simply reaffirms what the Constitution has already set in stone. It sets an unacceptable precedent for flexibility over a whole list of 'sanctified' rules of conduct, and in fact puts them and our faith in government in complete peril.
But help me out here: is that really the reason why these Democratic reps haven't signed?
If this is bizarroworld and that is the dismal reason, and if what you say is true and sponsorship is such a formality, then what, if anything, is holding up the bill?
I'm a little lost as to why this whole process is even happening, which only seems to accomplish running out the procedural clock while an complex national/international atrocity is quietly permitted to continue.
AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!? how hard can it be to see that we need to get our country back on track? What could possibly be holding these assholes up?
I'm so sick of this government, we need to give them all the boot and start fresh!!!
patti murry just heard from me too...
why doesn't she give two shits?
This group are some of the most decent and honest in the dems. Kind a makes me wonder what is wrong with the bill.
If this is as decent as honest as they are willing to be, Mark, we're in serious trouble. There is NO excuse to waste a moment restoring habeas corpus. None.
webb? and lieberman signed it already? bizarro world.
does the bill have some hidden iraq war shit in it?
perhaps there's something down the pike for decommissioning the military commissions act. surely. my gullible hope continues.
FYI, while Senator Wyden hasn't sponsored the bill by Arlen Specter (R-PA), he has co-sponsored the Habeas bill by Chris Dodd (D-CT). That's S.576, the "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007".
(Full disclosure - I manage Senator Wyden's campaign website, Stand Tall for America, but I speak only for myself.)
Kari Chisholm @ 57:
***
well I guess I stand corrected. sort of. dual bills aren't helpful though, and do kind of represent furthering politicization of politics. but its nice to know his official stance is in support of habeas corpus.
UPDATE: Poster Brendan reminds us that Sen. Tim Johnson is still recuperating from his brain hemorrhage and it would be unfair to castigate his lack of vote on this matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I would hope most readers of C&L realized the Tim Johnson (D-SD) listed was the same Tim Johnson (D-SD) who has been recovering from a brain hemmorhage. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if some wingnut poses as a liberal and sends him a nasty email.
In any event, I hope what he has isn't contagious. Because I can't fathom any other reason the other 19 Democrats didn't sign off on this bill.
Anybody who doesn't come out strong for this bill needs to be put on the street. I am exceedingly disappointed that my senator (Webb,VA) has not come out for this. I know Warner won't (he's a committed anti-American fascist and a totalitarian). Anybody who doesn't vote for this bill needs to be targeted for replacement. Anybody who supports stripping habeus corpus most likely also supports torture and every other violation of Human Rights and the constitution. they go hand-in-hand; such people aren't fit for office or any position of trust or authority. They gots to go.
For what it;s worth, if Sen Tim Johnson is aware of what's going on, I expect him to at least state his support for the restoration. For that matter it is also inexcusable of any Republican not to support this bill. This issue goes to the soul of what America is supposed to be about.
i wouldn't send these senators nasty e-mails. I WOULD ask them if they are going to be supporting this! just cos they arent co-sponsoring doesnt mean they wont vote for it! so please, dont be obnoxious and send nasty emails condemning them.
Repeal the Military Commissions Act... Agree.
i called and emailed my senators. hope it makes a difference...i agree prof farnsworth- i was so tempted to tell senator vitter that he might be able to redeem himself for his hypocritical wankerage if he votes to protect habeas, but i restrained myself...
To Senator Tester
I sent you money (from out of state). I own you.
Reaffirm Habeas.
That is all.
...
StirFry @ 56:
that's actually what i was wondering just now when i saw that chris dodd has another bill to restore the constitution...hmph...in that case...
mark @ 54:
crap...now on top of wondering i'm worrying...
BaScOmBe @ 44:
yep.
Bic @ 17:
Which can only assist the Republicans. Good call, Cindy.
andrew @ 20:
Do you actually read any of the other posts? Not being a co-sponsor has nothing to do with how a Senator will vote. The Democrats are solidly behind restoring habeas corpus.
I just called Chuck Schumer's office and they said he HASN'T DECIDED YET! What the hell?
Why do we keep reelecting this guy?
Truly surprised by some of these names. What's the story? There must be more in this bill than just the restoration of habeas corpus. Does anyone know?
I sent an e-mail to Sen. Casey. I also congratulated him on his display of character on the Senate floor by stopping the Christian fundamentalist hecklers.
Thank you for posting this list. These are the lists that interest me most. We need to start holding these politicians accountable for all their votes.
The Supreme Court will hear arguements on part of the Act preventing Prisoners at Gitmo access to U S Courts.
Since a Military Judge said the law doesn't cover "enemy combatants" as it pointedly states "illegal enemy combatants" can't have access to U S Courts.
With the Radical Justices Bush appointed it may be certain they will look only at that section of the law.
They will probably rule an "enemy combatant" and "illegal enemy combatant" are one and the same????
That is probably, although I hope I'm wrong, where the Supreme Court will stop in it's judgement of the Military Commissions Act.
Jo @ 15:
I agree, Sicko was such a great movie, it definitely opened my eyes about how shitty the United States government treats it's people.
We need a new revolution NOW!
Wayne @ 45:
How do we get the states to petition Congress to do this without sounding like a bunch of those wacky LaRouche supporters to our state legislatures?
Think about the amount of legislation that are signed into law every year. Think about the amount of precedent setting decisions that are decided by the court system every year. Think about the amount of executive orders the president signs every year. Multiply that by 20 or 30 years. We have really lost control over our system and what it all means. The middle class is being effectively legislated out of existence through laws that impede liberty, exact taxes, and legally allow foreigners to depress wages through sham guest worker programmes or have jobs outsourced to other regions of the world (not to mention the illegal immigration employment laws that are not enforced). The effectiveness of our government is such that less than half the eligible voting population actually exercises their rights to vote because they are disillusioned and believe it just doesn't matter.
A fresh start may be in order in order for the people to have a more effective voice in government.
I emailed Mikulski about her lack of sponsorship of the Bill. This is what she replied ( cut for length ):
I voted against the Military Commissions Act (S. 3930) because it did not rule out torture techniques that we don't want used on our troops.
...
That's why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Restoring the Constitution Act (S. 576). This bill would:
* restore habeas corpus rights for individuals held in U.S. custody
* require the U.S. to live up to its Geneva Convention obligations
* prevent the use of evidence gained through torture and coercion
* and accelerate judicial review of the Military Commissions Act to determine if its provisions are constitutional.
Sounds like Babs is going one step further.
Wyden is a generally positive senator, but let's say he sometimes needs encouragement and responds well to it. If you live in Oregon, give one of his offices a call. I just did.
And while we're on the topic, old Gordo seems to be running scared right now. He might be amenable to threats. What with the war and the newly discovered information about Cheney, him, and the Klamath River salmon kill. Who knows?
E in MD @ 77:
576 is better then, no?
i should have known...anything w/ arlen specter tied to it...surely it has some hidden iraq profiteering snack for the republicans who are "distancing themselves" from boosch...
i'm going to write my senators and ask that they NOT support this one but rather support 576...
So I ask you if it was Arlen (Spector) who put together the we don't torture bill that allowed Bush to any way?
Possible that these decent dems (who I will always side with) are concerned about another loop hole for Bush or that it is phrased so that it is simple for Bush to do a signing statement to make it pointless? I sure wouldn't want to be listed by the bible thumping republican serfs (see they signed it) if it turns out like other republican bills.
Why are dems signing onto a republican bill instead of pushing their own. The fact that Holy Joe has signed already concerns me.
Ben Nelson...why am I not surprised?
Nicholas @ 81:
I was thinking the same thing. This guy seems to be on track to become the next Joe Lieberman. Is there some way for Democratic Leadership to start disciplining their members?
Of course, the State he represents is pretty much chock full of NeoFascist Christian Warriors. The only difference between them and the Deep South is that Nebraskans are more polite about it.
Hey folks... I just talked to someone in Wyden's office. It's their view that the Dodd bill is a stronger, better bill than the Specter bill. They expect that the Senator will vote for the Specter bill if it comes to the floor, but that they don't expect him to co-sponsor the Specter bill - in hopes of pushing it closer to the Dodd bill.
(Full disclosure: I work on Ron Wyden's campaign website, but I don't speak for anyone but myself.)
[...] What’s your damage, Heather? digg_url = 'http://suspect-device.com/blog'; digg_bgcolor = 'cbcab6'; digg_skin = 'compact'; [...]
American Revolution Roots: Stamp Act And the Lesson of Habeas
The issue of voiding an illegal bill -- and the Parliaments' decision t0 refuse to void an act -- is at the heart of the American Revolution. Recall what inspired the opposition to the 1765 Stamp Act: Coke wrote in 1610, more than 100 years prior, ". . .when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason , the common law will control it, and adjudge such an act to be void."
Today, we're asking the world to ignore the foundations of our democracy, pretend that outrage against the Stamp Act did not occur, and for this President to retain the option to ignore what Congress hopes to do: Re-assert the Habeas Corpus.
To assent to this madness asks that we as free people grovel. No. We are free people bound by law. The Habeas Destruction Act is not merely a "defect" that Congress can remedy; it is void. The President and Congress have no power to remedy or fix that which was illegal. Believing anything else would ask that we cast to the winds the very catalyst of the American Revolution, and pretend the Stamp Act did not inspire the needed revolt against Tyranny in 1776.
Supreme Law Undebatable
The Constitution is to be protected against encroachments. One of those is the false notion that the Congress and President can "agree to cooperate" to repair what they had no power to damage: The Constitution. NO, that requirement is not through law, nor subject to cooperation or agreement: IT is something else -- a requirement secured by oath, 5 USC 3331 and that oath of office of the President in the Constitution. To pretend that they can agree that they alone can fix this ignores the fundamental problem: The act cannot be salvaged; nor can the President and Congress jointly agree to "negotiate" over something that is void.
These privilege are not for Congress and the President to repair, but they are inalienable rights of We the People which no Congress or President can debate. Rather, they have an oath to uphold them. It is illegal for this President and Congress to "agree to debate" on something, for them, is a requirement. This bill, as it is planned, is not a remedy, but a false assent to false power which We the People never delegated: This Congress and President have no power to "agree to debate" something that is not debatable: The Supreme Law.
Inherent Rights Undebatable With Illegal, Void Acts
Congress and the President haven o legal standing to debate what undouted: Our birthright to Habeas. Recall Coke: "When the King says he cannot allow our liberties of right, this strikes at the root." This Congress and President have no power to discuss, debate, block, or consider what is more than a requirement, but a inherent right of We the People: Habeas.
Not only is the original bill illegal and void; so too is this subsequent "remedy": It is an illegal assertion by the President and Congress that they can vote and debate what is undebatable and shall be enforced: The Supreme Law. Please enter this bill as evidence of the Member of Congress and President's joint decision to illegally assert powers they were not delegated; and evidence of their 5 USC 3331 violations. Congress is complicit with this Tyrant in asserting and assenting to unlawful assertions of power. Congress gains by appearing to be incompetent, but at the expense of the Constitution and We the People. Congress remains the domestic enemy, complicit with this Tyrant. They should be prosecuted, with this tyrant for violatoins of their oath.
Ending italics.
[I found your tag and stuck the '/' in-Sitemonitor]
Login or Register to post comments.