Impeachment Obstruction is Treason

I am repeating this post because of its importance. Please read it and act upon it!

What the heck is going on in the minds of our so-called leaders in the House?

We all know there is no legitimate reason for the House Judiciary Committee to not immediately act on the Impeachment Articles brought to the House floor by Dennis Kucinich.

We all know that a majority of the American people are demanding that Impeachment hearings move forward.

Yet these elected representatives of the People's Will continue to stonewall the American People.

These elected representatives of the People's Will continue to thumb their noses at their Sworn Oaths of Office.

These elected representatives of the People's Will continue to flip the bird at the millions of Americans who throughout our history, have fought and died for the Constitution they now threaten to destroy.

By the simple act of deliberate inaction on the most pressing matter of our time, namely the destruction of our Constitutional Republic by the Bush Administration as well as our current slide towards neo-conservative fascism, our elected representatives of the People's Will have fanned the flames on the political wildfire that now threatens to consume our Constitution and our futures.

You are absolutely right Zahir, in your assessment of our need to think far beyond Impeachment. And to do this effectively, We the People must wake up to our own history. We must realize that we need to step back, take a breath, and take complete stock of what our collective options are. We have more options than most people realize, options that do not involve violence or violent revolution, because options involving the use of violence must go the way of the dinosaur.

Here are a few facts to consider during this period of reflection.

We the people are not governed by the Constitution. We the people created the Constitution in order to frame and control our people's government from becoming tyrannical.

The people's authority to frame and control government is derived from this country's founding document, the Declaration of Independence. This document is very clear on it's terms of use.

"that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, & organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness...when a long train of abuses & usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security."

Another fact is that numerous key figures in the House have sufficient cause to be arrested for felony obstruction of justice. These same obstructing Congresspeople, by their actions, may even be guilty of treason. Article I section 6 of the American Constitution provides the authority for any sheriff, who is the highest law enforcement official in any county in this country, to legally arrest members of Congress. It reads the following.

"Sect. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

The peoples right to act as law enforcement is protected in the Constitution of this country, as well as in the constitutions of most of the states. The peoples right to effect a citizens arrest, or otherwise resist or defend themselves against unlawful behavior regardless of any official status of the perpetrator, is absolute whenever there is no other law enforcement either willing or able to effect arrest, or when the officer(s) themselves are acting in a manner that is unlawful and counter to the unalienable rights of the people.

Research for yourself:
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306,
Housh v. People, 75 111. 491,
State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452,
State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245,
Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349,
State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447,
State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621,
Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80,
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1,
Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I,
Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75,
Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903,
State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,
Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910,

The principle underlying these cases is that of the sovereignty of the American people over their government. This is reaffirmed in the American Constitution in the Preamble and Article I section 1.

"WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED
STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

ARTICLE I.
Sect. 1. ALL legislative powers, herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The important word there is "granted", and that it is the people that are doing the granting. In legal constructs, privileges are granted and based on authority delegated to it by a higher power, whereas rights are inherent and unalienable. The government does not have rights, they exist only on privileges and the authority that we choose to delegate to them in order to act on our behalf. This is further reaffirmed in my state Constitution which states the following.

"Article II, Section 1:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it, when the public good may require."

California goes further in their Constitution with Article I Section 7b which states the following.

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

The status quo will try to tell you that this was "original authority" being exercised and that we the people gave that authority up to the congress upon ratification of the new Constitution. I say to reread the Declaration of Independence, and while you're at it, read the last four pages of the following Supreme Court decision of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts pro- [5 U.S. 137, 177] hibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?

There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.

The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

'No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'

Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged."

Folks, we need to act as sovereigns and to think strategically beyond the "silver bullet" of Impeachment. Absolutely we must demand Impeachment. But we the people must also be willing to move and act beyond the box of Impeachment by exercising our sovereign duty and taking on the mantle of George Monbiot in the UK who is thinking strategically with citizens arrests, and have the courage to take on the war criminals ourselves.

Read and sign the Peoples Warrant for the arrest of Bush, Cheney, et al., support the People's Constitutional Convention, and let We the People regain control of our political apparatus and our government of, for, and by the people of this country.

Our children's children are counting on us.