« "I Don't Know Enough About It" | Main | Update on Iraq »

July 10, 2007


Encourage Committees To Include Zeros In Committee-Reported Bills

Stop allowing bills to only be "zeroed-out" though only Amendments

I hope the bill -- out of the committee -- includes ZEROS. If the bill does not include zeros, it means [a] the only way to zero-out the OVP funding is with an Amendment; and [b] the GOP can block the Amendment/Conference Committee report to ensure the original bill with funds is not affected. This is backwards. There is a solution.

Deny the GOP Senate the Option to "keep funding in place by blocking Amendments or the Conference Committee Meeting"

Please encourage the Congress to stop using Amendments to zero-out budgets. Include only in the reported bill out of committee the budget with zeros:

A. If the President vetoes this bill, he gets no money;

B. If the Senate GOP "blocks with a filibuster" or "refuses to agree to a conference committee on the original bill with Zeros" the President gets no money.

OT -- I sent you some info via email that might be of interest. Then again, maybe not. Just want to call your attention to it.

On topic, when would we be likely to hear Mr. Cheney begin squealing?

Do we really want to go down the road of defunding offices, agencies, or branches of government with which we don't agree ? While it may seem like post incident on the road to Damascus, maybe it is the road to perdition? If we do this, however right it seems, might we NOT want to see defunding used in the same way in the future? Just a thought.

Or maybe the Dems should do it, and get public points for having spines and ethics? I dunno.

...Cheney will be wondering how he can fund his ongoing plan to shred our Constitution.

On a Sunday morning in February, my last day in D.C. during the Libby trial, I went downtown for a personal walking tour of the various famed monuments, winding up at the National Archives. Nothing interfered with my sober contemplation until I was looking at the Bill of Rights next to a woman who was explaining to her elderly mother how the document had faded so badly due to exposure to the elements.

"Not only that," I interjected, "but Dick Cheney keeps sneaking over here with an eraser."

From the Gavel:

Judiciary Confirms Miers Appearance, Announces Vote to Authorize RNC Subpoena

July 10th, 2007 by Jesse Lee
From the Judiciary Committee:

Conyers, Sánchez Confirm Harriet Miers for Public Hearing, Announce Vote to Authorize RNC Subpoena

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez confirmed that former White House counsel Harriet Miers will attend Thursday’s hearing concerning the US Attorney firings. The lawmakers also announced that because the Republican National Committee (RNC) has failed to agree to voluntarily turn over all the emails relevant to the investigation, the subcommittee will vote to authorize a subpoena for those materials following Miers’ testimony on Thursday.

“I am looking forward to Ms. Miers testimony on Thursday, and hope that she will be forthcoming with us so that we may get to the bottom of this matter,” Conyers said. “I am also hopeful that the RNC will fully cooperate with us. We have patiently sought to work with all parties to learn the truth concerning this very serious matter and will continue to do so.”

“I look forward to Ms. Miers testimony and am hopeful that a former Supreme Court nominee would be especially mindful of the importance of protecting the integrity of the justice system from partisan politics,” Sánchez added.

Deadeye can cash out some Haliburton stock and still tell everyone to go Cheney themselves, all the while shredding the Constitution.

Surely Taylor and Miers can't claim privilege over doc-dump emails, can they? And can they claim privilege over whether they had magic RNC email accounts, and what they did with them?

Do we really want to go down the road of defunding offices, agencies, or branches of government with which we don't agree ?

There's a substantive difference between having a political issue with a department's mandate (see: GOP/NEA) and being asked on the one hand to fund OVP as part of the executive branch while being told it's not subject to the rules of the executive branch.

I still want the Senate to propose a rule change that forces Cheney to sit in the presiding chair every day it's in session between now and January 2009, just because it'd be possible to keep tabs on that glowering bastard on C-SPAN2.

I have a question. Somewhere in the administrative code for how Agencies need to comply with the reporting requirements I remember reading that Agencies 'self-report'. That is, maybe for security reasons?, the agency handling classified info must audit themselves. So my question is: if OVP must self audit, is this a separate thing than the report? Maybe OVP is doing the audit and not filing the report. It seems worse to me that there would have been a practice of auditing that suddenly stopped, rather than if the auditing continued, but the report was not turned over to an external agency. Maybe like the difference between not turning over you accounting records and not keeping any in the first place, or not keeping your emails as opposed to not turning them over to Congress.


that's classic!

Do we really want to go down the road of defunding offices, agencies, or branches of government with which we don't agree ?

Yes. This is how government is supposed to work. If the bastards defund something the people want to keep, we vote them out and elect different bastards next time. In this case there is nothing to worry about: nobody, but NOBODY wants to keep Cheney.

I think he's a flight risk. Perhaps Congress should put him under house arrest pending impeachment and require him to wear an ankle bracelet so we know where he is at all times.

And Anon: your comment didn't make any sense to me. I think you're complaining about some procedural thing, but it's not clear exactly what you're getting at...?

Eeeeexcellent, Smithers... Release the dogs!

Marcy, now that you are in DC -- naturally you will hook up with PTV and record nightly standup coverage & commentary, right?

and the crowd nods a unanimous yes...

Lawful Assertion of Congressional Power

It's appropriate to defunding offices. The issue isn't agreement or disagreement but illegal activity. Let's deal with today's reckless OVP as it is: Unresponsive. No reason to have any sympathy for them. I reject the following:

"Do we really want to go down the road of defunding offices, agencies, or branches of government with which we don't agree ? While it may seem like post incident on the road to Damascus, maybe it is the road to perdition? If we do this, however right it seems, might we NOT want to see defunding used in the same way in the future? Just a thought. Or maybe the Dems should do it, and get public points for having spines and ethics? I dunno."

Budget Markups

Compliance reviews are assessed. ON the table are not just the EO's but whether OVP is or is nto complying with the Code of FEderal Regulatoins:

GOP Got Into Habit Of Demanding GOP-Congres Rubber Stamp Illegal Activity

Those days are over. November 2006 was teh big change. Now, during the budget reviews, it is the job of the agency/executive4 leadership to make the case to Congress:

- This is what we are doing
- You can trust us with this money
- We've been responsive to the law and oversight
- You can trust us to remain in compliance

Then, after the Execuitve Agency makes their presentation, Congress asks: Do we want to do it? If not, they zero out the budget. Next! OVP won't plaay by the CFR rules, they get no money; but they are then proseuted for violating the CFR. Funding cuts are only the first step: Next come the prosecutors.

Until the OVP shows it can manage money by responding to simple questions, there's no reason to give it any money. Time for OVP to wake up: Power of the Purse is an ureveiwable power.

As to the "concern' that we "don't want to go down this path" -- hay, I heard that BS in re filibuster. What did the GOP do when it had a chance? It 'went Down the path."

Don't ask the world to tie its hands behind its back to 'get alon" or "what might happen n the future." Non-sense: This is now. What "Might" happen in the future is speculative.

If there is no good reason to cut funding, then the Voters are going to go after the offending faction which has cut the money. Today,t he Voters want OVP to comply with the law. OVP refuses.

Stop making excuses of "beware about that." Hay: Bring it on. Why isn't the GOP proposing to cut the OVP funding so it can blame the DNC for it? Get real. There is no credible prospect of a backlash so long as the OVP refuses to provide info, and the Congress is appropriately attempting to get compliance.
When OVP refuses to cooperate, no reason for Congress to cooperate. OVP funding cuts are appropriate, measured, and within the lawful powers of Congress to assert. Bush broadly used commutation as he saw fit; it is well within the Congressional Powers to cut funding as it sees fit.

Where was the "oh, better be concerned about the future"-warnings for Bush? He ignored it. No reason for the Congress to pay attention to similar warnings. Its a myth.

Cut the OVP funding. They have recklessly refused to cooperate. No reason to give them any more money. Watch for the reprogramming actions, as we saw with Iran-Contra, to keep providing money to OVP through "other means". How much money is Halliburton going to put on the table; or is the CIA going to print up some more $100-dollar-bills but blame it on the Koreans?

Congress. May. Use. Any. Criteria. It. Chooses. To. Cut. Money. From. Unresponsive. Arrogant. OVP. Staff. Councel.


:"And Anon: your comment didn't make any sense to me. I think you're complaining about some procedural thing, but it's not clear exactly what you're getting at...?

Try this: There are two ways to make a budget: From the bottom up, starting with Zero and requiring the President and GOP to justify adding any money; or from the President's budget, and adjusting it with Amendments in the full Senate or House.



A. Current method: One budget has numbers in it; the budget it adjusted by Amendment.
B. Proposed Method: The other budget has zeros in programs the Congress wants to cut; to add any money to the "zero-line-items", the GOP has to pass an Amendment, requiring 60 votes int he Senate to override a DNC filibuster.


The Congress typically starts in committee with the budget, and it concludes budget numbers in all the programs. This is sent out of committee and goes to the floor. TO change those budget numbers, there have to be amendments. The GOP can block the amendments, and leave the dollar figures unchanged.
I'm proposing the other way of doing a budget: Not by adjusting dollar figures, but from the bottom up: Start with Zero, and make the GOP and President come to the Well of the senate/House -- through their GOP-allies -- and get Amendments passed to add any money. That way, if the GOP blocks the Amendments, they still get stuck with nothing; or if the GOP refuses to agree to a conference committee on the budget, there is no money; or if the President vetoes the bill, he still gets no money.

The Present way is to issue out of committee a budget with numbers. The new way would have zeroes in the budget line items that the Senate Leadership have targeted. This, in effect, is how the Legislature can veto a Presidential program. If the President or GOP in the Senate attempt to block any of these legislative defecto-vetoes, they get no money. A presidential veto doesn't force the Congress to stick with what is a bad budget; in this case it would reject the budget, but not go to "another budget" that "has money in it."


The two approaches to budget are just extremes. There are o other ways to start. The point is that rather than have the committees when they report an appropriations bill should not include money in what they want to cut. Rather, they should avoid putting any dollars in those budget lines, and require the GOP to pass with an Amendment a change to the Zero-budget-line-item. This forces the GOP to work to get dollars in; as opposed to the current method of the DNC having to "work" to get the dollars out.

Put the burden n the GOP and President to explain why any money should be put in any budget line. When there is no amendment passed to include those dollars, the President gets nothing. Even if the President vetoes a bill -- and rejects Congress decision to not add money -- he is not helping himself: He's rejecting all the other budget line items that Congress has provided money for. The President is backed into a corner and is shooting himself in the foot.
The proposed change is simple: Rather than trying to carve a budget down to zero with an Amendment that the GOP might block; this turns the tables on the GOP, Senate, and President: The House leadership -- the Speaker on her own -- can put "zero" in any budget line she chooses. If the GOP blocks the conference report; or refuses to pass an Amendment, the GOP/Senate/President are stuck with budget line items that are still zero.

The Senate should also put its own house in order. It provides funds to Cheney as its president. Stop them and his use of all facilities until he plays by the rules. For example, he refuses to disclose a number of his activities - and refuses even to acknowledge who works for him. So, cut off funds and refuse access to Senate facilities. Mr. Cheney can continue to thumb his nose at the idea that anyone should know what he's doing, much less how well, but the Senate needn't subsidize it.

Anon, your proposal makes a lot of sense. So why has this method not been used before. I imagine its because "that's not the normal practice" in Congress, where tradition and precedent can often be used (even manipulated) to the detriment of what the rest of us might consider common sense.

Addington's Budgeting Problems

The other thing: There may be a statute which Congress cannot change, but there's a catch: There may be a legal requirement on the President to do something.

But Congress isn't required to provide funds for that. IT can zero-out the funding. IT can leave the enforcement of that statute up to marginal people, without any resources to really do its job: Kind of like how the FEC is run. Said another way, even though Addington likes to say, "WE can't change this budget because it affects the President's power," those days are over: Congress is only required to recognize one broad power of the President: Executive. All other things the President does are not "powers", but options.

If you look At Article I and Article II, you'll see an interesting contrast. Notice The Congress has multiple powers [plural]; but the Executive only has a single power: Executive.

President's _Sole_ Power Expressed In Constitution

Contrasting Legislature's Multiple Powers vs. Executive's Sole Power

Article I [plural]: "All legislative _powers_ herein granted shall be vested in a Congress" -- see that plural powers? Now, contrast it with Article II:

Article II [single]: "The executive _power_ shall be vested in a President. . ." : -- See that word: "power" -- that's not plural like Article I, it's singular. Meaning: The Constitution only delegated to the President one power: Executive. Under that is the Title "Commander in Chief".

As with the Iran-Contra Minority Report, Addington does selectively cutting and pasting of the words. Addington added an "S" to article II "power" and then said, "The President has broad powers which Congress cannot review or cut funding for." Nonsense. Only the legislature has multiple powers. The notion of "war powers" is an illegal expansion above Article II, and says "We recognize new powers of the President." No, he only has one power< Executive: Options including Pardon is merely subset of that single, finite power. Congress has the power to impose on the President ministerial duties which he must follow. One of these is FISA. The President has no delegated "power" to ignore the Congress. And whether we are at war or not, the President remains a clear responsible for managing funds, following the law, an and reporting to Congress what he is doing. This President refuses.

This means one thing: When Addington talks about "powers" he's making up illegal language. The President, as a clerk, only has one power: Executive. HE may be able to pardon people, but that's not a "new" power, but simply one of the things the President can do under the Umbrella of the Executive.
This is important when looking at Addington's red pen marks on eh budget. When he says, "This can't intrude on the President's power," Addington is adding an "S" to the Article II clause int eh Constitution. He can't do that.
Rather, when Congress chooses not to provide funding -- and zero-out budget lines -- Congress alone is deciding which finite resources it is giving the President. The President cannot spend money Congress does not authorize Rather, the President must manage the finite resources he has.

In other words, the President cannot argue, "But I need more money for the troops." No, Congress is saying -- with that finite dollar amount -- this is all you're getting; you have to conduct your affairs within that budget amount. Th The job of the President is to properly manage the funds, and not go on foreign adventures requiring more funds.

The job of a clerk -- with one power, Executive 0-- is to mange the funds, and only wage war using the finite resources. When the President expands warfare beyond what Congress alone decides to spend, then the President is engaging in financial mismanagement. This is not an issue of the Congress "not supporting" the troops; but the opposite: The President putting the troops n harms way without ensuring that the are adequately led, trained, or equipped with the finite resources he has. Rather, the President is at fault: Rather than using the finite money he has to ensure the troops re protected, the President is using the money for "Other things". It is not the job of the Congress to rubber stamp him a another budget; but the opposite: Fr the President to work within the existing budget and properly ensure the troops -- with that Budget - are adequately trained, resourced, and protected to do what the Congress in its declaration of war has decided.

When Congress "amortizes" force, this does not mean that Congas is a authorizing the President to be reckless; or expand illegal warfare to require higher fees. Someone has to do an audit. The issue with OVP and the auditors is that OVP has blocked the auditors; but still wants more money. Nope. Those day days are over. With this many zeros, Addington is going to be going through many red pens. The Speaker can ignore him, and force him into a corner: "You're stuck with those Zeros, Addington." Addington's red pen is powerless to compel the Speaker to put money in. Unless. The. Speaker. Alone. Chooses. To. Give. This. Reckless. Clerk. In. The. White. House. One. Time.

That's change. And that's the mandate of November 2006. Addington's red pen...who cares. He can't write money into a budget line and make the GOP rubber stamp it. Not with a zero-budget baseline; and the GOP requirement to justify Adding money. The DNC doesn't need to block a filibuster: The GOP cannot have a filibuster -- It needs to discuss Amendments and get the money added. The Speaker in the House has alot of power to zero-out the President's programs.

Today, those programs are on the table. WE the People can defund them. Any. Time. We Choose. The President must assent to our will. If he refuses, and illegally spends money not appropriated, he can be prosecuted as was done with Iran-Contra.


Just because there exists a legal requirement to do something, doesn't mean Congress is required to put any money against that requirement. It may not be able to change the laws of the GOP; but it is not required to fund what has been authorized. There is no requirement of any AUMF that the President "make" the Congress provide "full" funds. That is for Congress alone to decide: "How much is enough."

The AUMF is meaningless when Congress decides, "Even though the AUMF is on the books," you're getting no money.

Also, just because the GOP Congress passed the illegal MCA or Habeas Destruction Act, Congress can say, "We will not put any dollars against the DOD or DOJ budget lines that support these illegal activities. No money for MCA; and no money for Habeas Destruction." This means that the Congress can, in effect, nullify an illegal bill; and refuse to allow the President to spend any funds. It also takes the President out of the loop on whether he "can or cannot" refuse to "pass a bill" that "corrects" an error. For example: When the Habeas Destruction Action was passed illegally, Congress wanted to "Reverse" it with a new bill The problem: The President does not have to agree, even though the original bill was illegal.

The solution is to quit arguing oer a "new bill," and simply put Zero-by all appropriation lines related to enforcing that illegal Habeas Destruction Bill. Congress has two broad options: It can either pass a new bill to change the illegal ones; or it can simply refuse to provide full funding, preventing the President from putting that illegal bill and language into effect. The President may not reprogram funds on his own to put funding into a budget line item Congress has zeroed out.

The Courts are powerless make Congress put money against budget line items that are unconstitutional or violate Geneva: Habeas Destruction and the illegal MCA. The GOP Congress may have passed these illegal bills, but they are not enforceable; and it is illegal for Congress to require anyone spend any money to enforce them. When linked with war crimes, the President and Members of Congress can be prosecuted when they jointly agree to continue spending money fro programs that violate Geneva, as the MCA does. Congress doesn't have to "wait around" for Chief Justice Roberts to rubber stamp the illegal activity; Congress can trump the Judiciary by refusing to provide funds. This is how Congress needs to confront the Chief Justice who has not adequately accounted for his ethics issues in re the prisoner treatment issues.

If the Court or Presidenet disagrees, they are allowed to take Congress to court to compel action. They will fail on requirements to fund Geneva violations, war crimes, FISA violations, and other breaches of the Supreme Law. Judicial Officers who compel illegal activity, or assent to violations could be adjudicated with war crimes. The Precedent is Nuremberg. This Supreme Court remains on the table for war crimes reviews. If they refuse to enforce Geneva, they canb be prosecuted. There is no statute of limitations.

Whew! It looks like Anon has hit on the real meaning of "the power of the purse". Do you think this is the original meaning and congress has missed it all this time?

Cheney don't need no stinkin' Congress money. He'll just call up his pal Bandar, and sell a few million more Cheneyshares(TM) to his sugar sheik.


I like the way you think! :)

So, chew on this thought:

Congress alone has the power to raise militias. The President tells the Army where to fight, but Congress commissioned it and funds it. Congress alone therefore has the power to disband it or defund it. The President cannot legally create and command a mercenary force, even if he is funding one through the Pentagon (more "contractors" than official armed forces in Iraq).

The National Guard used to be under the control of the various Governors and is funded by both state and federal governments. The President issued a few infamous executive orders (last October 17, IIRC) and took complete control... he can use those forces against We the People, just like his own private police force. If he was a bit more delusional and decided that cheerleaders were telegraphing information to terrorists or that the Boy Scout Jamboree was a terrorist training camp, he could legally order some Guardsmen to stomp out the disturbance. (I remember the Kent State slayings, and the FBI spying on the Quakers, so this is not far-fetched.)

Many governors are unhappy that their Guardsmen are overseas, and their equipment is overseas, and both people and equipment are coming back broken, if they make it back at all.

The Guard is not another Army. It is designed primarily to protect the homeland from disasters, which is why states used to come to each other's aid when there are wildfires and hurricanes and floods and earthquakes. If the members wanted to serve the country by fighting, they'd have joined the regular armed forces. They joined the Guard to serve their communities. But they aren't here when needed, and many feel guilty and angry about it.

Therefore, my idea is this:

Congress passes a law disbanding the National Guard immediately.

All members overseas are to return home within 10 days, unless they are hospitalized or otherwise constrained. All injured veterans are to receive proper medical care, and everybody to receive follow-up for PTSD. All equipment is to be returned to the states.

The Governors of each State can create a team of disaster specialists/first responders if they so choose. The members would be trained for containing wildfires, digging people out from rubble or mud, rescuing flood victims, and other useful pursuits... helping and saving their fellow citizens. They would receive no military training. Instead, they would learn to assuage panic and calm crowds by encouraging people to help each other. They would learn how to use all their senses and the latest rescue gear. People skills and technical skills would be in demand. If there is a regional disaster, teams can go to the aid of other states, with the permission and approval of both Governors.

Major cities have SWAT teams and riot police. If there is such extreme disorder that armed force is required, and it is more than the forces at hand, a Mayor or a Governor can ask his colleagues for reinforcements. However, that is still not an army, and not a team which can be sent overseas for warfare. Losing control of one's own populace should be considered a major embarrassment, career-ending, so calling in snipers and assault units would be a last resort.

The moneys being spent to stock a Guard Armoury and pay for people who aren't here when needed, and who won't ever be here, given the neocon's century-of-war-plan, can instead be used to fund community disaster teams, so I think the governors might prefer this wiser allocation of resources. The families and communities affected by prolonged overseas warfare should welcome this change.

Why can't Congress disband the National Guard and bring our people home?

Is there any reason beyond inertia for not moving on this?


The US, regardless the legality or illegality of invading Iraq, has Geneva obligations to provide for the security and stability for Iraq. Geneva obligations could impose liabilities on the US government when it is shown, despite the known obligation and obvious unstable situation, the US is not allocating the resources to Iraq, but is deploying them to other situations like Iran. It would have been better for the US to focus on Afghanistan first, show the world the American model works, and stabilize the country.

FISA Court Lesson

As you review the information below about rule changes, recall what the FISA Court did: When the FBI agents lied to the FISA court,the FISA court made sweeping rules: Any FBI Agent who lies to us is not allowed to appear. Ever.

The same approach to the President needs to be taken: When he lies, defies our Will, he is denied money, access, deference. He can send someone else. The President cannot compel Congress to respond to him. This President needs to find someone else to approach We the People to share their views on what the Congress might do. WE the People may, without notice like the FISA court, make a sweeping rule which denies the President, or anyone else, access to any committee when discussing which budget line items to zero-out.

We the People are not required to assent to this brazen abuse by contractors who violate our will; yet appear in Congress through lobbyists demanding that they get money. No. If they want to have an appearance, they need to file certifications in writing under penalty of perjury that they are in fully compliance with their attorney standards of conduct; and not engaged in illegal activity. That certification may be the basis for disbarment if it is false. Blind assent to lobbyists, legal counsel, and others appearing at the Congress is over. Congressional Committees are not required to take any lobbyist bill; but they can trash it, and zero-out budget lines for those specific contractors and lobbyists which have been implicated, or refuse to cooperate with Congressional inquiry into FISA violations, illegal activity, rendition, Geneva violations, or other illegal activity.

[ hauksdottir | July 11, 2007 at 10:12 ]

Your idea has merit. Congress has the sole power to raise and support a militia. All funds supporting the use of those forces in Iraq may be zeroed. The President could be denied any funds to spend one dollar to support combat-related expenses for specific units Congress has disbanded, no longer raises, and refuses to support. This is not an issue of cutting the money off to "end activity by X-date," but to prohibit the President from spending any money. It would be the responsibility of the President to raid contractor funds for acquisition/procurement to pay the redeployment costs. The contractors who have benefited from the war mobilization could reasonably expect a cutback in program funding as the President reallocated funds, under Congressional oversight.

"Why can't Congress disband the National Guard and bring our people home?" : They can. The power to "raise" an army attaches with it the opposite power: The power to "not raise" that army. Congress, when it refuses to provide funding to the President in re any AUMF is, in effect, declaring the emergency over, and saying, "We no longer raise this army." President cannot use what has no support or has not been raised.

Arguably, this many years after 9-11, the President cannot argue that he can rely on the AUMF to continue. Congress can declare the situation over, changed. If it takes this many years to go after people living in caves, there's a problem. As stated before, the situation was isolated, for the most part, to Afghanistan. Even despite abusing power and ignoring the law, this President still botched it. Giving him more money, without reforms, in the OVP, rewards more botched operations. Nope.

"Is there any reason beyond inertia for not moving on this?" No. I encourage you to work with the State Officials at the local level, and outline a statement to the effect that the State will no longer support unlawful use of your state citizens' or contractors' resources, as this President is doing. Time time to plan for a transition is now. Even if Congress refuses to end this, State Officials and the AG may legally declare the use of their state resources to support this illegal activity in contravention with their oath and refuse. State officials may lawfully prosecute contractors and other state citizens for following illegal orders; or supporting unlawful warfare. I encourage you to contact your State AG and open a discussion about your state prosecuting a sitting President outside Congress outside impeachment.

What's different about Iraq, unlike Germany after WWII, is that Iraq has not been controlled by the invading Armies. It's also a different political situation: Not just civil war and insurgency, but there is active internal conflict between the domestic population between themselves and with the occupying power. The US has the Geneva obligation to stabilize the situation.

[ JohnJ_Fla | July 11, 2007 at 00:20 ]

"Do you think this is the original meaning and congress has missed it all this time?"

Yes, one of the intents; and yes, Congress has missed this. One problem has been the reluctance of the Congress to adequately staff their committees with sufficient numbers to oversee the documents, scrub them, and aggressively challenge the DoD, DoJ, and DHS officials on their plans. In February, the President's Budget shows up; and the spring markups continue. There's alot of paper transferred all over the world to explain the budgets, dollars used, and how things are progressing.

Budgets Are Clay Not Solid Statutes

What Congress needs to do is beginning to take a look at the Budget not as something the President gives them that they either approve or slightly adjust like a statute; but the opposite: It is something that the Congress can destroy, shape, and remold like clay.

Expansive Use of Impeachment Power

In the end, the President must agree or reject the version Congress provides. Congress needs to have more staffers who can credibly shape and manage these funding baselines. If the program managers cannot meet the goals of Congress, and the President refuses to fire them, Congress may impeach them for incompetence.

Congress can impeach anyone it chooses: Outside civilian legal counsel may be lawfully impeached. Impeachment is a tool that matches the Executive's prosecutions: Where the President refuses to prosecute, or prosecutions are blocked, the Congress may impeach. where the President has blocked enforcement of the law against civilians outside government, the Congress may impeach.

Failure of any government to either prosecute or impeach whether either or both are warranted is a reasonable basis for other countries to conclude the government is no longer exercising sovereignty. The President says his commutations are not reviewable and he can do what he wants; so too are the House impeachments unreviewable: They may impeach anyone inside or outside they want. For. Any. Reason. The. House. Chooses.

Civilian. Legal. Counsel. Outside. Government. Associated. With. Illegal. Activity. FISA Violations. Geneva violations. Rendition. Or Other Illegal Activity. May. Be. Impeached. Any. Time. The House. Chooses. Precedent. Is. Irrelevant.

The Rule of law Shall prevail; a President's decision to insulate legal counsel from oversight or prosecutions means Congress must use impeachment to instill discipline within the ranks of the reckless legal community that has arrogantly abused its trust to support illegal activity in violation of Treaty and Our Will. This is impermissible.

Outside legal counsel allegedly complicit with rendition, FISA violations, war crimes, and other illegal conduct is under investigation and the target of war crimes prosecutors, Grand Jury reviews, and ongoing oversight by We the People: There is no statute of limitations for outside counsel in re alleged war crimes involvement, complicity, or failure to remove oneself as legal counsel had a duty, but apparently refused. As with WWII Germany, legal counsel was instrumental in devising programs, writing memoranda, and supporting policy makers in putting into effect these war crimes. This has undermined reasonable public confidence in the Judicial system of the United States; and materially undermines the trust We the People might have placed in the hands of legal counsel, the legal community, the courts system, and the notion of whether the oath of office for legal counsel means anything. They have brought discredit upon themselves and their profession.

Speaker Trumps President

Congress, especially the Speaker, do not appreciate the real power they have. When we work from a Zero-up budget, this puts the President in the position of justifying what he wants to do to Congress. If the congress does not approve, they do not fund that program. The Speaker has more power than the President: She can refuse to give the President anything; and the GOP in the Senate cannot "force" money into something that has no money. The President will only get money if the DNC approves. Thus, to argue because the DNC has "subpoena power" things are "going to change" is meaningless: Until we have a change in the budget approach, this DNC continues to rubber stamp. Those days need to end.

Real change means requiring the President to outline his plan to Congress, justify the dollars, and possibly Congress might approve, reject, modify, or present their own plan. The President is stuck with that plan; or he can reject it, and get nothing. Time for Addington and the President to awaken: we the People know our options to compel assent by Addington and the President -- Either cooperate with fact finding, or you shall be denied money. If he wants money, he needs to cooperate with the Congressional investigation into this illegal activity: FISA violations, rendition, prisoner abuse, Geneva. This President was in charge, and the misconduct attaches to him.

Separation of Powers: Congress Decides the Budget -- The President Must Work to Within that Budget, or Risk Impeachment For Maladministration

It was the intent of the Framers to use the power of the purse to prevent the Executive from increasing debt on costly wars. This President has used the fact that he's made a mess to argue, circularly, that "because we have a mess, he needs more money." No, he has a mess, and he has to clean it up with the money he has left; and the US shall spend money to transition from what we have to a resolution.

Constitution Trumps Precedent

The Constitution does not require Congress to rubber stamp. Precedent is meaningless when that precedent supports Geneva violations, illegal warfare, and maladministration by this President. Congress has the discretion to change. The Committee Chairs have the power to zero-out any and all things. If the DNC unite, as they did when they unanimously supported, Pelosi, they could easily agree to stand by all decisions of all Committee Chairs to zero-out selected areas; then compel the GOP and President to explain with details why they need the money.

Until the President provides the details of the RNC e-mails, the OVP and EOP IT areas shall not get funding. The Courts can direct that an outside magistrate take over the day to day operations of a defective area within EOP that the President refuses to manage. This is an option of the Court which Congress may propose and allocate money. In other words, although money may be denied the President on a specific budget one, Congress can create a separate entity that will oversee, audit, and manage the clean up of that mess: In effect, creating a separate agency like the GAO that reports only to Congress, and in effect, acts like an intrusive monitor to question,oversee, evaluate, and make recommendations. Congress can direct Program Managers in the Executive Branch meet specific legal requirements on training.

Congress alone has the rule making power. Congress may revoke all delegations of power to the President on any administrative rule making; and Congress can assert its Article I Section 8 powers and write the rules which the DoD and DOJ staff shall comply. To date, the President has been delegated discretion; but Congress has the power to deny funding for any rule making entity that is making rules assenting to illegal warfare or Constitutional violations.

If Cheney was upset at what happened after Nixon, he hasn't seen anything yet. We the People can trash this Presidential budget, inject our own advisers, and directly manage and regulate how this clear in the oval office conducts his minute-by-minute affairs. If he refuses to cooperate, we can lawfully impeach him without warning, regardless precedent. We can do that multiple times. We the People fully support impeachment. We may as well grind this President's political nose in the mess hes created, and force him to fight for rights and things that he's denied others. This will make him appreciate the power of We the People, and the Bill of Rights which he might enjoy if he agrees to cooperate. Otherwise, he could be lawfully denied liberty, pension, and property.

[ Posted by: Cymro | July 10, 2007 at 23:35 ]

"Anon, your proposal makes a lot of sense. So why has this method not been used before. I imagine its because "that's not the normal practice" in Congress, where tradition and precedent can often be used (even manipulated) to the detriment of what the rest of us might consider common sense."

The issue of "precedent" and ignoring it, is not established as a requirement. Congress may, without precedent and without coordination, change. Through Chair action and sweeping changes to committee rules change to how the President is required to justify his budget request. The question is whether We the People are willing to inspire the Congress to see they have the power to do this -- right now. They do.

DNC May See The Wisdom of Some GOP Budget Amendments

Amendments are not simply an issue of GOP problems: Just because the DNC says, "We want to see an amendment before we approve funds for X, Y, Z programs," the DNC is allowed to support that Amendment. This is not a burden on the GOP to overcome: The DNC and GOP, both starting from Zero and after listing to the President make his case to the Committee, may agree to co-sponsor Amendments to provide funds.

The approach would shift the current budgeting from "we need to provide a reason to change the President's budget," to "the President needs to provide a justification for these dollars before we approve one dollar for this budget line we have frozen at zero."

What You Can Do

After reading the above, and you're lost, or wondering what can be done,here are some ideas.

1. We the People Supervise President

Remind your friends: We the People are the source of all power. This President has defied Our Will. He has mistreated We the People; thus, we have not requirement to treat him with any more respect than required by law. He has no authority over us, unless we agree. Rather, WE the People have authority over him, which he has illegally defied. He is wrong. He is not acting in a manner consistent with Our Will and Should be treated accordingly.

2. State Prosecutions of Sitting President and VP

Work with your State officials to prosecute this sitting President; and prosecute contractors and state citizens who have illegally supported this President's illegal activity, FISA violations, war crimes, and other violations of the law.

3. Funding Witholds: Denying Option of President To Assert Any Article I Powers

Encourage your fiends to read article 1 Section 8: This is the list of expansive powers delegated only to Congress. Encourage your friends to share ideas: Which things has Congress delegated to the President that Congress needs to reassert Control, deny funding, and directly make rules to directly manage these functions.

4. Burden On President To Make Case

Work with your friends to support a zero-budget-line for specific Presidential programs. Remind the Committees they can use funding to hire former Executive Staff, auditors, and prosecutors; and compel the President to explain his program. Where the President and VP refuse to submit to the Code of Federal regulations, law, State, Executive Order, Constitution, or Geneva, it is appropriate to shut down funding pending new management, better information, or prosecutions.

5. We the People Are In Control

Encourage your friends to discuss your solutions to these issues. Auditors may be thwarted, but that obstruction is not a problem: It is evidence.

6. Discuss A New Constitution

We the People, if this Congress and Government refuses to cooperate, may -- without notice -- revoke this Constitution and enact a New One. That option is on the table. Either impeach, prosecute, or We the People are moving forward with a New Constitution.

As We the People prepare for drafting a New Constitution, review the Magna Charta and Constitution in this spirit: Each is a simple list of solutions to problems. The Constitution is a list of solutions to problems with the articles of Confederation, and things listed in the Declaration.

As you see the relationship between problem-solution in the Magna Charta and Constitution, apply that approach to the current issues this President presents: What methods do WE the People need to enact with a New Constitution to prevent this abuse from happening again:

A. What will compel prosecutions regardless which faction controls the Government;

B. What will timely ensure illegal warfare is ended;

C. What will compel the legal community to timely assert their oath and end support for this criminal activity;

D. what methods in the age of information does Congress need to randomly sample, audit, and get access to data within the Exercise Branch on an ongoing basis without a subpoena?

E. What oath of office, standards of conduct, and other duties shall attorneys, all US government agents/contractors/employees/officials agree to comply regardless their party?

F. What mechanism needs to be created to ensure that the Constitution is preserved actively not out of convenience?

G. What methods could be used to remind the States of their powers to prosecute a sitting President outside impeachment outside Congress when Congress refuses to assert its oath?

H. What legal options do WE the people need to be reminded of when the US government uses secrecy to violate the Bill of Rights?

I. What legal requirements can be imposed on all citizens to ensure that illegal
Presidential orders, warfare, abuse, or other illegal activity is reported, not supported, and swiftly prosecuted?

J. What incentives can be created for contractors, agents, personnel to put their loyalty to the Constitution and We the People above the President, illegal activity, secret activity to violate the Supreme Law?

K. How will the Article 1 Section 8 powers be formally asserted through budget reprogramming; and how will the President's intrusion of the article 1 Section 8 powers be remedied to prevent this above from happening again?

L. What will be done to lawfully target for prosecution the CEOs, Boards of Directors, and legal counsel of firms who have been complicit with rendition, war crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal activities in contravention to Our Will; which financial-stock-capital gains need to be targeted for return to We the People because of contractor complicity with illegal activity and ill-gotten gains at the Expense of Our Rights and the Conventions?

M. What will be done to ensure the legal community is forever reminded that it shall assent to the rule of law; and that the precedents of Nuremberg attach to them to remove themselves from war crimes, illegal activity, and other misconduct which defies Our Will and the norms of civilized society?

N. What will be done to timely prosecute Members of Congress and Executive Branch when they appropriate or spend money on unconstitutional things: MCA, Habeas Destruction, FISA violations, illegal NSLs, and other violations of the Conventions or Supreme Law?

O. What mechanisms need to be ready when the US government fails, and refuse to assert its oath, enforce the law, prosecute, or ensure discipline relative to Our Will?

P. What options and powers do the States need to have reminded that they can cooperate when the US government engages in war crimes, illegally uses state resources to advance illegal warfare, and uses illegal power to compel assent to unlawful activity and intimidation?

Q. What will be done to ensure the legal community faces an eternal rebuke, and is forever subject to random, non-notice audits to ensure that its activities are consistent with its oath of office and standards of conduct; and that legal counsel have not been assisting violations of Our Will, Supreme Law, Geneva, or other legal obligations?

R. What will be done to ensure that secrecy is not used to hide evidence of reckless legal counsel complicity with violations like FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, illegal warfare?

S. What methods need to be on the table as options for We the People to, without notice, lawfully capture,examine, and subject to no-notice audit samples of data to ensure all branches of government are substantially complying with their legal obligations; and that they are not using secrecy to hide evidence or unlawful activity?

T. What needs to be done to create a new system of governance that will insulate the media, auditors, prosecutors, and fraud examiners from intrusion; and ensure their findings are timely provided to We the People related to corporate, private, or government threatens or defies to Our Will?

Q. What are the solutions to ensure this never happens again; and the abuses are timely identified, mitigated, and actively thwarted by lawful powers ready to timely, swiftly move to defend the Constitution from domestic factions within the Halls of Government, in the legal community, and other so-called "positions of trust" that have been recklessly abused in defiance of Our Will?
The general problems can be articulated. Solutions are possible. This does not need to happen again.

Thank you for your support. The Rule of Law Shall Prevail. This President has no hope. He has defied the wrong citizenry: We the People. Very poor choice. He shall assent to Our Will and Our Direction to prevent his abuse from continuing or ever happening again.

He wished this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad