RECESS APPOINTMENTS

January 15, 2012

To: Senator Bill Nelson
cc: Representative Sandy Adams and Senator Marco Rubio
 
If you Democrats allow the current Executive to reorganize U.S government business related agencies and departments you will be playing into the hands of a master manipulator whose real, single, and continuing purpose is to dance not only on the Senate’s political grave, but also that of the House and the freedom of the nation’s people.    He continues to make you ever more irrelevant.  This latest move, I’m sure, is merely to consolidate power just like when he recently made recess appointments when you were not in recess.

You must find a way to check the usurper’s power.

MAYBE you could allow creation of a cabinet level business seat if The President FIRST fires 30 Tsars and their minions and HE publicly acknowledges his original appointments were unconstitutional because the advice and consent of the Senate was not sought in the first place.

Happy New Year (LOL)

Newt is Right on Restraining the Judiciary!

Newt Gingrich has been pilloried for his expressions regarding control of the judiciary through such actions as abolishing federal courts and requiring judges to appear before Congress to answer questions about their rulings.  Much of the media have done a masterful job in making all this sound as if Mr. Gingrich advocates for arbitrary executive powers.  Yet, consider the following information:

Federalist 78: “…In a monarchy [judges serving indefinitely while they are on good behavior] is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.  And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”

DAN – Take special note of the goal “impartial administration of laws”

Federalist 80:  “…If some partial inconveniences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of [particular jurisdictions for the federal judiciary] into the [constitution], it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences.”

DAN – “EXCEPTIONS” capitalized in the source document

The U.S. Constitution:

Article I Section 2: “The House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

DAN - Obviously, this includes the President and all federally appointed officers and magistrates including federal Judges.  “Impeachment” means to formally accuse a public official of misconduct.

Article I Section 3:  “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

DAN - The House refers for trial in the Senate those who have been impeached.  A guilty finding in the Senate results in removal of the subject from federal office.

Article III Section 1:  “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.”

DAN - Clearly, those who have the power vested in them to establish can also disestablish.  Congress cannot, in compliance with the Constitution, disestablish the supreme Court.  It can, however, do what it likes with respect to the existence of the inferior federal Courts.  If a judge’s behavior is not good, Congress can, at least, impeach that judge.  Perhaps, because the Senate’s consent is constitutionally necessary for appointment of federal judges, it could merely remove its consent even without an impeachment.

Article III Section 2:  “…[Except for cases] affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party… the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction… with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

DAN – “…with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”!  The Congress can tell the federal judiciary to stay out of any particular subject!  It can regulate how the federal judiciary addresses any subject!

So… what would a President be expected to do under the Constitution if the Congress abolished a court, but the judge would not leave?  What if a judge is called to Congress to investigate behavior that might lead to his impeachment and the judge does not choose to show up?  What if the Senate removes its consent for a particular judge and notifies the President of that fact?

Mr. Gingrich knows.

What we see of his answers makes them sound bad.  Perhaps when he speaks saying “I’d…” he neglects that he is positing as the candidate executive rather than as the holder of his last government role, the leader of the House.  Nevertheless, what Mr. Gingrich professes on the matter of ways to restrain the judiciary is correct and proper under the Constitution.  This is not a pleasant subject.  Exposed in its discussion is the fact that government is force.  It is only by people in government behaving constitutionally that power is sufficiently constrained to allow a peaceful and prosperous nation.  Many elected and appointed officials no longer care.  This includes some judges.

"Moron"? Really!

Latest Missive to Democratic Senator Bill Nelson on 10/19/2011:

Please tell your moron leader, Harry Reid, that the Federal government... I repeat FEDERAL... has no business, nor authority, to be funding police or teacher jobs.

P.S.

Why does your contact web site not have a "Topic" of "Constitution" listed?  Oh wait... don't answer that.  I forgot.  You guys don't give a crap about that topic.

President, Dictator or Fuehrer ?

Sent to Senators and Representatives on 8/11/2011:

How does the Obama “administration” move forward with “a waiver” to law?!  Isn’t the President, and therefore his administration, supposed to uphold the law?  Is not the “No Child Left Behind Act” law?  If the law can merely be waived by the President and his minions, at will, should not Congress change the executive office title for the country to “Dictator” or maybe “Fuehrer?  How can this circumstance exist in America?  How can you and others in Congress sit idly and ignore such egregious abuse of power?  What am I missing that explains all this?  Please tell me.

Please see the following article excerpts:

“States are rushing for the No Child Left Behind exit door.

Within hours of Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s announcement Monday that he will grant waivers from federal mandates, several states announced that they would apply for relief. Many others are expressing interest, pending the release of more details next month…

Mr. Duncan floated the strategy this summer in the hopes that it would spur Congress to overhaul the No Child Left Behind Act.

That hasn’t happened, so the Obama administration has moved forward with a plan to grant waivers to states if they demonstrate reform and maintain high levels of student achievement. All 50 states can apply, and Mr. Domenech said he expects that the vast majority of them will do so.

The mystery surrounding the details of the plan doesn’t appear to be deterring states.”

ARREST the CEO of Standard & Poors?

August 8, 2011

I copied this from an authoritative source today.  I send it in case someone you know may need to better understand what “they” will do once power transformation is secure.  The subject is what Michael Moore has tweeted -- Putting this desire juxtpostion the Senate (Democratic led) banking committee decision to “look into” the S&P downgrade decision is chilling.

“Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008 & now they will do it again,”, Mr. Moore wrote.

Too Late?

Sent to Senators and Representatives on 7/13/2011:

After reading the following excerpt, my hope is you will tell Sen. McConnell, and all others, that We The People shall not appreciate any plan that involves Congressional abandonment of Constitutional duties to the President.

Excerpts from “The Road to Serfdom”, F.A. Hayek, 1944. Chapter 10, Why the Worst Get on Top

“We must return here for a moment to the position which PRECEDES THE SUPPRESSION OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is THE GENERAL DEMAND FOR QUICK AND DETERMINED GOVERNMENT ACTION that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action’s sake the goal. It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough “to get things done” who exercises the greatest appeal. “Strong” in this sense means not merely a numerical majority – it is the infectiveness of parliamentary majorities with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants.” [emphasis – mine]